Himachal Pradesh High Court
Samar Singh Rana vs Santosh Kumari on 16 June, 2023
Author: Sushil Kukreja
Bench: Sushil Kukreja
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
.
Cr.MMO NoS.118 & 16 of 2022
Date of Decision: 16.06.2023
_________________________________________________
(1) Cr.MMO No.118 of 2022
Samar Singh Rana
....Petitioner
Versus
Santosh Kumari
...Respondent
_________________________________________________
(2) Cr.MMO No.16 of 2022
Samar Singh Rana
....Petitioner
Versus
Ankita Rana
...Respondent
_________________________________________________
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge
Whether approved for reporting?1
________________________________________________
In both the petitions
For the petitioner : Mr. Kulwant Singh Gill, Advocate.
For the respondent(s) : Mr. Pankaj Mehta, Advocate.
________________________________________________
Sushil Kukreja, Judge (Oral)
Both these petitions have been filed by the petitioner-Samar Singh Rana under Section 482 of the Code 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2023 20:31:58 :::CIS 2of Criminal Procedure (for short, Cr.P.C.) against order dated .
27.01.2022 passed in Cr.MA No.132 of 2021 and order dated 14.12.2021 passed in Cr.MA No.133 of 2021 by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Hamirpur, H.P, whereby petitioner Samar Singh Rana was directed to pay maintenance of Rs.6,000/- per month to respondent Santosh Kumari (in Cr.MMO No.118 of 2022) and Rs.15,000/- per month to respondent Ankita Rana (in Cr.MMO.16 of 2022), with a prayer to set aside the aforesaid impugned orders on the basis of a compromise arrived at between the parties.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner Samar Singh Rana and respondent Santosh Kumari got married on 04.12.1994 and out of the said wedlock, respondent Ankita Rana was born on 05.12.1995.
Due to the differences between petitioner Samar Singh Rana and Santosh Kumari, respondent Santosh Kumari left the company of the petitioner alongwith minor daughter in the month of September, 1997 and started residing in the house of her parents. Petitioner Samar Singh Rana filed a petition for divorce and ultimately an ex-parte decree of divorce was ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2023 20:31:58 :::CIS 3 passed by the learned District Judge, Kangra at .
Dharamshala. Thereafter, the respondents Santosh Kumari and Ankita Rana filed separate petitions under Section 125, Cr.P.C, for grant of interim maintenance on the grounds that they were residing in the house of the parents of respondent Santosh Kumari and respondent Ankita Rana was doing B.D.S. from Mumbai and her maternal grandfather was bearing the expenses of her study and after his death, the petitioner had not paid a single penny to the respondents for their maintenance.
3. Vide the aforesaid impugned orders dated 27.01.2022 and dated 14.12.2021, the learned Court below granted maintenance of Rs.6,000/- per month in favour of respondent Santosh Kumari and Rs.15,000/- per month in favour of respondent Ankita Rana.
4. Today, the petitioner as well as the respondents i.e. Santosh Kumari Ankita Rana are present in person and their statements have been separately recorded and placed on the file.
::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2023 20:31:58 :::CIS 45. Petitioner Samar Singh Rana, in his statement, .
stated that he had entered into a compromise with the respondents Santosh Kumari and Ankita Rana, out of the Court, vide Mutual Compromise Deed, Annexure P-1 and the parties have mutually agreed to settle the pending maintenance claim (maintenance petition pending before the trial Court and interim maintenance petition before this Court). He had handed over Demand Draft No.000689 dated 05.06.2023, amounting to Rs.5,00,000/- to the respondents Santosh Kumari and Ankita Rana as full and final settlement of the maintenance claim filed by them, on the condition that they shall withdraw all the pending litigation between the parties and in future also, they will never file or seek any claim against him. It has also been agreed between the parties that respondent Santosh Kumari will surrender all her rights qua moveable and immovable properties of the petitioner and she shall not institute any kind of proceedings against his second wife and also against his family after his demise and respondent Ankita Rana will also surrender her right of being his legal heir. Therefore, in view of the said ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2023 20:31:58 :::CIS 5 compromise, it is prayed that both the petitions may be .
disposed of as per the terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties.
6. In their statements, respondents Santosh Kumari and Ankita Rana have stated that they had entered into a compromise with petitioner Samar Singh Rana, out of the Court, vide Mutual Compromise Deed, Annexure P-1 and the parties had mutually agreed to settle the pending maintenance claim (maintenance petition pending before the trial Court and interim maintenance petition before this Court). The petitioner had handed over Demand Draft No.000689 dated 05.06.2023, amounting to Rs.5,00,000/- as full and final settlement of the maintenance claim filed by the respondents, on the condition that they will withdraw all the pending litigation between the parties and in future also, they will never file or seek any claim against the petitioner. It has also been agreed between the parties that respondent Santosh Kumari shall surrender all her rights qua moveable and immovable properties of the petitioner and she will not institute any kind of proceedings against his second wife and ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2023 20:31:58 :::CIS 6 also against his family after his demise and respondent .
Ankita Rana will also surrender her rights of being legal heir of the petitioner.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned counsel for the respondents and also gone through the material available on record.
8. In Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, explaining that High Court has inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with no statutory limitation, including Section 320 Cr.P.C., the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that these powers are to be exercised to secure the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process of any Court and these powers can be exercised to quash criminal proceedings or complaint or FIR in appropriate cases where offender and victim have settled their dispute and for that purpose no definite category of offence can be prescribed. However, it is also observed that Courts must have due regard to nature and gravity of the crime and criminal proceedings in heinous and serious offences or offences like murder, rape and dacoity ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2023 20:31:58 :::CIS 7 etc. should not be quashed despite victim or victim's family .
have settled the dispute with offender. Jurisdiction vested in High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is held to be exercisable for quashing criminal proceedings in cases having overwhelming and predominately civil flavour particularly offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil partnership, or such like transactions, or even offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry etc., family disputes or other such disputes where wrong is basically private or personal nature where parties mutually resolve their dispute amicably. It was also held that no category or cases for this purpose could be prescribed and each case has to be dealt with on its own merit but it is also clarified that this power does not extend to crimes against society.
9. Further, the Apex Court in Parbatbhai Aahir alias Parbhathbhai Bhimsinghbhai Karmur and others vs. State of Gujarat and another, (2017) 9 SCC 641, summarizing the broad principles regarding inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has recognized ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2023 20:31:58 :::CIS 8 that these powers are not inhibited by provisions of Section .
320, Cr.P.C.
10. In case Narinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and others, reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 and also in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan and others, (2019) 5 SCC 688, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has summed up and laid down principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with criminal proceedings.
11. In Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab, (2008) 4 SCC 582, the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasized and advised that in the matter of compromise in criminal proceedings, keeping in view the nature of the case, to save the time of the Court for utilizing to decide more effective and meaningful litigation, a common sense approach, based on ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2023 20:31:58 :::CIS 9 ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of law, .
should be applied.
12. In the instant case, since the matter has been amicably settled between the parties, therefore, keeping in view the nature of the offence, I am of the considered view that no fruitful purpose will be served to continue the proceedings against petitioner-accused as continuation of the proceedings will be an exercise in futility. The justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored in order to maintain harmonious relations/atmosphere between them.
13. Consequently, in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, whereby the parties in both these petitions have mutually settled all the disputes between them, this Court deems it fit to exercise power vested in it under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and, as such, both these petitions are allowed and consequently, order dated 27.01.2022 in Cr.MA No.132 of 2021 and order dated 14.12.2021 in Cr.MA No.133 of 2021 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Hamirpur, H.P., are quashed and set aside.
::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2023 20:31:58 :::CIS 10The parties shall abide by the terms and conditions of the .
Mutual Compromise Deed, Annexure P-1, which shall form a part of this order.
14. The petitions stand disposed of in above terms, so also the pending application(s), if any.
June 16, 2023
(VH)
r to ( Sushil Kukreja )
Judge
::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2023 20:31:58 :::CIS