Himachal Pradesh High Court
Chander Vir Kaundal vs State Of H.P on 12 January, 2017
Author: Sanjay Karol
Bench: Sanjay Karol
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CRMMO No.385 of 2016 Date of Decision : January 12, 2017 .
Chander Vir Kaundal ....Petitioner.
versus
State of H.P. ...Respondent.
Coram:
of
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge.
For the Petitioner : Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma,
rt Advocate.
For the Respondent : Mr. R.S. Verma, Additional
Advocate General, for the
State.
Mr. Rajesh Verma, Advocate,
for respondent No.2.
Sanjay Karol, Judge
By medium of this petition, under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioner has sought quashing of FIR No.162/2014, registered at Police Station, Dharamshala, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, on 22.9.2014, under Section 376 of IPC, and consequent proceedings, i.e. Criminal Case No.59/2015, titled as State of H.P. v. Chander Vir Kaundal, pending in the Court of ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:54:16 :::HCHP ...2...
Additional District Judge (2), Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh.
2. The facts leading to the filing of the present .
case are that the petitioner and respondent No.2 Laxmi Devi were known to each other. They were having good relations and intended to solemnize marriage. However, since the petitioner was delaying solemnization of marriage, of some misunderstanding cropped up between the two, and Laxmi Devi lodged a complaint with Police Station, Dharamshala. However, on 19.5.2015, both the petitioner rt and respondent No.1 solemnized their marriage with each other. Certificate of the marriage alongwith marriage registration certificate dated 26.8.2015 stands annexed with the petition as Annexure P-2.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
4. It cannot be disputed that in case the prosecution is continued and respondent No.2 is exposed to a trial process, it would definitely defile her future life and happy matrimonial life.
5. I am convinced that no offence of rape is made out and now that the dispute stands resolved forever, the law cannot be so harsh which would stand as a wall between the parties because the law has to secure the ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:54:16 :::HCHP ...3...
future of the parties or else the same would cause an irreparable harm and hardship and may even tarnish and spoil the reputation of the petitioner and respondent No.2 .
and their families.
6. Looking at the case from another angle, since the petitioner has solemnized marriage with respondent No.2, obviously, there is no possibility of her supporting the of charge in case the petitioner is put to trial. Therefore, in such circumstances, the continuation of the criminal proceedings rt would only cause untoward torture and harassment apart from creating undue social and psychological pressure upon the private parties. It will be an extremely sad story in case respondent No.2 is called in the witness box to depose against the petitioner, who is none other than her husband.
7. In such an eventuality, respondent No.2 would definitely not support the prosecution case. Therefore, there is not only remote but bleak rather no possibility of the criminal proceedings culminating into a judgment of conviction even if permitted to proceed with. The continuation of criminal proceedings would only cause matrimonial disharmony and discord which is neither in the interest of society nor the private parties. ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:54:16 :::HCHP
...4...
8. In Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab, (2008) 4 SCC 582, the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasized and advised as under:
.
"We need to emphasise that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the court should ordinarily accept the term of the compromise even in criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the courts, grossly overburdened as they of are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilized in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of rt realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law."
9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find merit in this petition and the same is accordingly allowed. Consequently, FIR No.162/2014, registered at Police Station, Dharamshala, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, on 22.9.2014, under Section 376 of IPC, is quashed and set aside, and consequent proceedings, i.e. Criminal Case No.59/2015, titled as State of H.P. v. Chander Vir Kaundal, pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (2), Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, arising out of the said FIR, are hereby rendered infructuous. However, the same are expressly quashed so as to obviate any confusion.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:54:16 :::HCHP
...5...
With the aforesaid observations, present petition stands allowed and disposed of accordingly, so also pending application(s), if any.
.
Copy dasti.
( Sanjay Karol ),
January 12, 2017(sd) Judge.
of
rt
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:54:16 :::HCHP