Manish Kumar Son Of Tilak Raj And Another vs Rt on 6 April, 2016

[Cites 14, Cited by 0]

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Manish Kumar Son Of Tilak Raj And Another vs Rt on 6 April, 2016

Bench: P.S.Rana

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH




                                                                          .
                              SHIMLA:





                                      Cr.MMO No. 344 of 2015.

                                   Order reserved on: 30.3.2016.





                                     Date of Order: April 6,2016

    Manish Kumar son of Tilak Raj and another.




                                                of
                                                               ....Petitioners.

                                      Vs:
                      rt
    State of Himachal Pradesh and others.                      ...Non-petitioners.

    Coram:

    The Hon'ble Mr.Justice P.S.Rana, Judge.

    Whether approved for Reporting?1yes



    For petitioners:                  Mr. Sanjeev K.Suri, Advocate.

    For non-petitioners:              Mr.M.L.Chauhan




    No.1, 2&4.                        Addl. Advocate General.





    For non-petitioner                In person.
    No.3 complainant.





    P.S.Rana, Judge.

    ORDER:

Present petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 read with Section 320 of code of criminal procedure for permission to compound 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?yes ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:03:38 :::HCHP 2 criminal case No. 264-I-10/96-II/2010 title State of HP Vs. .

Nirmla Devi and others.

Brief facts of the case:

2. Complainant Kusum Lata @ Veena Kumari filed FIR No. 114 of 2010 dated 8.6.2010 under Sections 498A, of 504 IPC read with Section 32 IPC against accused persons.

Matter was investigated by investigating agency and investigation report under Section 173 Cr.PC filed before rt competent court of law. Thereafter competent court of law framed charge against accused persons under Sections 498A, 504 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and listed the case for prosecution evidence. Thereafter accused persons filed present petition.

3. Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioners and learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of non-petitioners No.1,2&4. Court also heard complainant Kusum Lata @ Veena Kumari and also perused entire record carefully.

4. Following points arise for determination in present petition.

::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:03:38 :::HCHP 3

(1) Whether petition filed under Section 482 of .

the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 read with Section 320 code of criminal procedure is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of petition?.

(2) Final Order.

Finding upon point No.1 with reasons.

5. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioners that permission to compound present rt case while exercising inherent powers be granted in the ends of justice is accepted for the reasons hereinafter mentioned.

Complainant Smt. Kusum Lata appeared before the Court and her statement recorded. Smt. Kusum Lata complainant has stated in positive manner that as of today she is residing with her husband Manish Kumar accused and she has no objection if petition is allowed. Statement of co-accused Manish Kumar also recorded. Co-accused Manish Kumar has stated that complainant Smt. Kusum Lata is his wife and she is residing with him and they have compromised the matter in order to keep cordial relations.

6. It was held in case reported in JT 2014 (4) SC 573 title Narinder Singh and others Vs State of Punjab and ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:03:38 :::HCHP 4 another that following criminal cases should not be allowed .

to be compromised on the basis of out of court settlement while exercising inherent powers under Section 482 code of criminal procedure (1) Murder case (2) Rape case (3) Dacoity case (4) Prevention of Corruption Act case (5) 307 IPC case It of was further held that following criminal cases should be allowed to be compromised on the basis of out of court settlement while exercising inherent powers under section rt 482 code of criminal procedure. (1) Commercial transaction case (2) Matrimonial disputes case (3) Family disputes case.

Court is of the opinion that present dispute inter se parties is matrimonial dispute. Complainant Smt. Kusum Lata has herself appeared before Court and she has stated that she is residing with co-accused Manish Kumar as of today.

Statement of Smt. Kusum Lata is also corroborated by co-

accused Manish Kumar. In view of the fact that complainant Smt. Kusum Lata and co-accused Manish Kumar are living peacefully in harmonious manner as husband and wife court is of the opinion that it is expedient in the ends of justice to allow present petition. Point No.1 is answered in affirmative.

::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:03:38 :::HCHP 5

Point No.2(Final Order).

7. In view of findings on point No.1 permission to compound criminal case No. 264-I-10/96-II-10 registered under Section 498A, 504 read with Section 34 IPC is granted while exercising inherent powers under Section 482 read of with section 320 code of criminal procedure in the ends of justice. Proceedings of criminal case No. 264-I-10/96-II-10 title State of HP Vs. Nirmla Devi and others quashed and rt accused persons are acquitted qua criminal offence punishable under Section 498A, 504 read with Section 34 IPC. Statement of complainant Smt. Kusum Lata and statement of co-accused Manish Kumar placed on record will form part and parcel of order. File of learned trial Court along with certify copy of the order be sent back forthwith.

Cr.MMO No. 344 of 2015 is disposed of. All pending application(s) if any are also disposed of.

(P.S.Rana), Judge.

April 6, 2016(R).

::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:03:38 :::HCHP 6

of rt ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:03:38 :::HCHP

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Himachal Pradesh High Court