Himachal Pradesh High Court
Vipul Kumar Kapadi vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Ors on 22 December, 2016
Author: Chander Bhusan Barowalia
Bench: Chander Bhusan Barowalia
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Revision No.287 of 2015 .
Reserved on : 07.11.2016 Decided on : 05.12.2016 Vipul Kumar Kapadi .......Petitioner.
Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. ......Respondents.
of Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1Yes.
rt For the petitioner : Mr. Amit Kumar Dhumal, Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. Virender Kumar Verma, Addl.
Advocate General with Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Dy.Advocate General and Mr. Rajat Chauhan, LawOfficer,for respondent No. 1.
Respondent No. 2 ex parte.
Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge.
The present Criminal Revision Petition is maintained by the petitioner under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called as "the Cr.P.C"), against the order dated 05.05.2015, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirmaur, District at Nahan, 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:47:22 :::HCHP 2H.P. on an application under Section 321 of the Cr.P.C in case No. 1/3 of 2015, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh Versus .
Vipul Kumar Kapadi, pending before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nahan, H.P.
2. The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that case No. 1/3 of 2015 has been presented against the of petitioner for allegedly having committed offences under Sections 43, 65, 66 and 72 of the Information Technology Act, rt 2000 before the learned trial Court in case FIR No. 177/2011, dated 17.08.2011, registered at Police Station, Sadar Nahan, District Sirmaur, H.P. During the course of the proceedings, an application under Section 321 of the Cr.P.C has been filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh for withdrawal of the case with the plea that the complainant/respondent No. 2 has amicably compromised the dispute with the accused/petitioner (hereinafter called as "the petitioner"). However, the learned trial Court has not appreciated the compromise between the parties and vide its order, dated, 25.06.2014, issued notice to the complainant and the complainant appeared before the trial Court on 22.07.2014 and made a statement that the ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:47:22 :::HCHP 3 matter was compromised with the petitioner, as such, the complainant has no objection if the same is withdrawn by the .
State, but the learned Trial Court has come to the conclusion that permission to withdraw the case cannot be granted and vide order dated 05.05.2015, dismissed the application and ordered to put up the case for consideration on charge.
of Feeling aggrieved by the decision of learned trial Court, the petitioner preferred the present petition.
rt
3. In the present matter, challan for having committed offences under Sections 43, 65, 66 & 72 of the Information Technology, Act, 2000, was presented against the petitioner. It is alleged that petitioner was appointed as Deputy Manager (Master Batch) vide appointment letter dated 27.05.2007. At the time of his appointment, the company's E-mail ID, i.e, [email protected], was provided to him and he was conferred the power to use propriety data relating to colour development and decodification of company shade numbers in the company shade card. It is also alleged that company's ID was solely in possession of the petitioner and the said Id was used by the ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:47:22 :::HCHP 4 petitioner for handling the various secrets, developments and trace data of the company. The petitioner, without the .
consent of the company, had transferred many trade secrets of the company to his personal Id. It is further alleged that the secrets of the company's developments, stolen by the petitioner, not only caused financial loss to the company, but of also the same have been misappropriated by the petitioner.
Police after investigating the matter, came to the conclusion rt that petitioner in order to take profit, sent data shade through his E-mail ID to other concerns, as such committed offences under Sections 43, 65, 66 & 72 of the Information Technology, Act, 2000.
4. The complainant, who lodged the complaint, has appeared before the learned Court below and stated that the matter has been compromised with the petitioner. If the complainant, whose ID was misused by the petitioner, has settled their dispute, this Court finds that no fruitful purpose will be served by keeping the complaint alive.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case carefully.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:47:22 :::HCHP 56. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court B.S. .
Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana and another, (2003) 4 SCC 675, have held that if for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necessary, section 320 would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing. It is of well settled that the powers under section 482 have no limits.
Of course, where there is more power, it becomes necessary rt to exercise utmost care and caution while invoking such powers. Their Lordships have held as under:
[6] In Pepsi Food Ltd. and another v. Special Judicial Magistrate and others ((1998) 5 SCC 749), this Court with referenc e to Bhajan Lal's case observed that the guidelines laid therein as to where the Court will exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code could not be inflexible or laying rigid formulae to be followed by the Courts. Exercise of such power would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case but with the sole purpose to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It is well settled that these powers have no limits. Of course, where there is more power, it becomes necessary to exercise utmost care and caution while invoking such powers.
[8] It is, thus, clear that Madhu Limaye's case does not lay down any general proposition limiting power of quashing the criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint as ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:47:22 :::HCHP 6 vested in Section 482 of the Code or extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We are, therefore, of the view that if for the purpose of securing .
the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necessary, Section 320 would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing. It is, however, a different matter depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case whether to exercise or not such a power.
[15] In view of the above discussion, we hold that the of High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers under rt Section 482 of the Code.
7. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Preeti Gupta and another vs. State of Jharkhand and another, (2010) 7 SCC 667, have held that the ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent. The tendency of implicating the husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of the criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. Experience reveals that long and protracted criminal trials lead to rancor, acrimony and bitterness in the relationship amongst the parties. The criminal trials lead to immense sufferings for all concerned. Their ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:47:22 :::HCHP 7 Lordships have further held that permitting complainant to pursue complaint would be abuse of process of law and the .
complaint against the appellants was quashed. Their Lordships have held as under:
[27] A three-Judge Bench (of which one of us, Bhandari, J. was the author of the judgment) of this Court in Inder Mohan Goswami and Another v. State of Uttaranchal & of Others, 2007 12 SCC 1 comprehensively examined the legal position. The court came to a definite conclusion and the relevant observations of the court are rt reproduced in para 24 of the said judgment as under:-
"Inherent powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. though wide have to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in this section itself. Authority of the court exists for the advancement of justice. If any abuse of the process leading to injustice is brought to the notice of the court, then the Court would be justified in preventing injustice by invoking inherent powers in absence of specific provisions in the Statute."
[28] We have very carefully considered the averments of the complaint and the statements of all the witnesses recorded at the time of the filing of the complaint. There are no specific allegations against the appellants in the complaint and none of the witnesses have alleged any role of both the appellants.
[35] The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent. To find out the truth is a herculean task in majority of these complaints. The tendency of implicating husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:47:22 :::HCHP 8 even after the conclusion of criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. The courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints .
and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment of husband's close relations who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complaint are required to be scrutinized with great care of and circumspection.
36. Experience reveals that long and protracted criminal trials lead to rancour, acrimony and bitterness in the rt relationship amongst the parties. It is also a matter of common knowledge that in cases filed by the complainant if the husband or the husband's relations had to remain in jail even for a few days, it would ruin the chances of amicable settlement altogether. The process of suffering is extremely long and painful.
[38] The criminal trials lead to immense sufferings for all concerned. Even ultimate acquittal in the trial may also not be able to wipe out the deep scars of suffering of ignominy. Unfortunately a large number of these complaints have not only flooded the courts but also have led to enormous social unrest affecting peace, harmony and happiness of the society. It is high time that the legislature must take into consideration the pragmatic realities and make suitable changes in the existing law. It is imperative for the legislature to take into consideration the informed public opinion and the pragmatic realities in consideration and make necessary changes in the relevant provisions of law. We direct the Registry to send a copy of this judgment to the Law Commission and to the Union Law Secretary, ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:47:22 :::HCHP 9 Government of India who may place it before the Hon'ble Minister for Law & Justice to take appropriate steps in the larger interest of the society.
.
8. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jitendra Raghuvanshi and others vs. Babita Raghuvanshi and another, (2013) 4 SCC 58, have held that criminal proceedings of or FIR or complaint can be quashed under section 482 Cr.P.C.
in appropriate cases in order to meet ends of justice. Even in non-compoundable rt offences pertaining to matrimonial disputes, if court is satisfied that parties have settled the disputes amicably and without any pressure, then for purpose of securing ends of justice, FIR or complaint or subsequent criminal proceedings in respect of offences can be quashed.
Their Lordships have held as under:
[13] As stated earlier, it is not in dispute that after filing of a complaint in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 406 of IPC, the parties, in the instant case, arrived at a mutual settlement and the complainant also has sworn an affidavit supporting the stand of the appellants. That was the position before the trial Court as well as before the High Court in a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code. A perusal of the impugned order of the High Court shows that because the mutual settlement arrived at between the parties relate to non-compoundable offence, the court ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:47:22 :::HCHP 10 proceeded on a wrong premise that it cannot be compounded and dismissed the petition filed under Section 482. A perusal of the petition before the High .
Court shows that the application filed by the appellants was not for compounding of non-compoundable offences but for the purpose of quashing the criminal proceedings.
[14] The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are wide and unfettered. In B.S. Joshi , this Court has upheld the powers of the High Court under of Section 482 to quash criminal proceedings where dispute is of a private nature and a compromise is entered into between the parties who are willing to settle their rt differences amicably. We are satisfied that the said decision is directly applicable to the case on hand and the High Court ought to have quashed the criminal proceedings by accepting the settlement arrived at.
[15] In our view, it is the duty of the courts to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes, particularly, when the same are on considerable increase. Even if the offences are non-compoundable, if they relate to matrimonial disputes and the court is satisfied that the parties have settled the same amicably and without any pressure, we hold that for the purpose of securing ends of justice, Section 320 of the Code would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing of FIR, complaint or the subsequent criminal proceedings. [16] There has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times. The institution of marriage occupies an important place and it has an important role to play in the society. Therefore, every effort should be made in the interest of the individuals in order to enable them to settle down in life and live peacefully. If the parties ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:47:22 :::HCHP 11 by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law, in order to do complete justice in the matrimonial matters, the courts should be less hesitant in exercising .
its extraordinary jurisdiction. It is trite to state that the power under Section 482 should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection only when the court is convinced, on the basis of material on record, that allowing the proceedings to continue would be an abuse of the process of the court or that the ends of justice require that the proceedings ought to be of quashed. We also make it clear that exercise of such power would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and it has to be exercised in appropriate rt cases in order to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone the courts exist. It is the duty of the courts to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes and Section 482 of the Code enables the High Court and Article 142 of the Constitution enables this Court to pass such orders.
[17] In the light of the above discussion, we hold that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash the criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint in appropriate cases in order to meet the ends of justice and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code. Under these circumstances, we set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court dated 04.07.2012 passed in M.C.R.C. No. 2877 of 2012 and quash the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 4166 of 2011 pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate Class-I, Indore."
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:47:22 :::HCHP 129. Thus, taking into consideration the law as discussed hereinabove, I find that the interest of justice will be met, in .
case, the proceedings are quashed, as the parties have already compromised the matter, which is placed on record.
10. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Petition under Section 397, read with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C, against the of order dated 05.05.2015, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirmaur, District at Nahan, H.P. is allowed and order rt on application under Section 321 of the Cr.P.C, in case No. 1/3 of 2015, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh Versus Vipul Kumar Kapadi is quashed and proceedings pending before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nahan, H.P., are also ordered to be quashed.
11. The petition stands allowed in the aforesaid terms.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand(s), disposed of.
(Chander Bhusan Barowalia)
5th December, 2016 Judge
(raman)
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:47:22 :::HCHP