Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 8, Cited by 11]

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Surinder Singh Verma vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others on 30 August, 2017

Author: Vivek Singh Thakur

Bench: Vivek Singh Thakur

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

                                             Cr. MMO No.309 of 2017

                           Decided on: 30.08.2017
        _________________________________________




                                                                         .

    Surinder Singh Verma                                                ....Petitioner

                                                Versus





    State of Himachal Pradesh and others                             ....Respondents





    Coram:

    The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.

    Whether approved for reporting? 1

    _______________________________________________

    For the petitioners                     :       Mr. Amrinder Singh Rana
                                                    Advocate.



    For the respondent No.1                 :       Mr. Pankaj Negi,               Deputy
                                                    Advocate General




    For the respondents No.2 & 3 :                  Mr.     Aditya               Sharma,
                                                    Advocate.





    __________________________________________





    Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge (Oral)

Invoking jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this petition has been filed for quashing of FIR No. 03/2014 dated 20.01.2014, registered 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes.

::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2017 23:26:17 :::HCHP 2

under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC at Police Station, .

Rajgarh, District Sirmaur, H.P. and also criminal proceedings pending in consequence thereof in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Rajgarh, District Sirmaur, H.P. on the basis of compromise arrived at between the respondent-wife Smt. Ruchhi Verma (Respondent No.2) r and her husband petitioner Surinder Singh Verma, who, alongwith their January, 2013 born daughter Ahana Verma, studying in Nursery at Solan, are now living together under one roof at Verma Niwas, Rajgarh Road, Near Government Degree College, Solan, H.P. for the last 5-6 months.

2. Offence under Section 498-A of IPC is a non-

compoundable offence. Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Ors.

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. PC, has held that these powers are to be ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2017 23:26:17 :::HCHP 3 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 offence like murder, rape and dacoity etc. should not be quashed despite victim or victim family have settled the dispute with offender. Jurisdiction vested in High Court under Section 482 Cr. PC is held to be exercisable for quashing criminal proceedings in cases having overwhelming and predominatingly 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 ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2017 23:26:17 :::HCHP 4 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.

3. Hon'ble Supreme Court, in case Narinder Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab and Ors. (2014) 6 SCC 466, has sum 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.

4. Marriage of respondent No.2-wife Ruchi Verma and petitioner Surinder Singh Verma was solemnized in April, 2012. Out of wedlock, they have one daughter Ahana Verma who is studying in Nursery at Solan. But their matrimonial life remained disturbed resulting into lodging ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2017 23:26:17 :::HCHP 5 FIR by respondent No.2-wife, mentioned above. Now, in .

pursuance to conciliation between husband and wife, all disputes have been resolved.

5. Petitioner and respondent No. 2-wife are present in person in the Court. They have also placed on record a copy of compromise deed (Annexure P-1) arrived at between the parties.

                  r         Statements, on oath of petitioner-

    husband and respondent         No.2-wife have also                  been

recorded wherein they endorsed settlement arrived at between husband and wife with prayer to quash FIR and criminal proceedings initiated and pending in consequence thereto. Both of them stated that compromise between them is with free will and consent, and without any pressure, threat or coercion and now there is no issue in dispute between them and also with respondent No. 3, mother-in-law of respondent No. 2 and couple usually visits her in village Dhamandari.

6. It has come in statements of petitioner-husband and respondent No.2-wife, and as also evident from ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2017 23:26:17 :::HCHP 6 contents of FIR, petitioner-husband had been compelling .

respondent No.2-wife to leave the job and for denying to leave her job, petitioner-husband had deserted her and had denied access to respondent No.2-wife in his residence including house at native village whereupon respondent No.2 -wife had lodged FIR resulting into criminal proceedings r against petitioner-husband and mother-in-law. Now, petitioner-husband has no objection rather consent for continuing respondent No.2 wife in job as teacher and respondent No.2-wife has decided to forgive and forget painful episode of their life and now husband and wife have started residing together under one roof for the last 5-6 months at Verma Niwas, Rajgarh Road, Near Government Degree College, Solan alongwith their daughter Ahana Verma. Respondent No. 2- wife has categorically stated that she, in pursuance to compromise she does not intend to pursue criminal proceedings in present case.

::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2017 23:26:17 :::HCHP 7

7. FIR and criminal proceedings in present case are .

result of family dispute. Family is a primary unit of society and very existence of society is based on family. Therefore there is always endeavour to save family. In present case also restoration of family is paramount consideration particularly for betterment of tender aged daughter of the couple who should not be deprived from protection as well as love and affection of either parent. Otherwise also complainant-respondent No.2-wife and petitioner are residing together and continuation of criminal proceedings and appearance of wife against her husband as a witness in the Court will definitely create an unprecedented awkward situation in family resulting into break up which was never aim for inserting Section 498-A in IPC as non-

compoundable offence.

8. Trial is not concluded and guilt of petitioners is yet to be proved by leading prosecution evidence.

Respondent No.2-wife is disinterested in continuation of criminal proceedings.

::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2017 23:26:17 :::HCHP 8

9. The offence involved in the present case does .

not fall in the category of offences, termed to be prohibited by the Apex Court, for compounding by exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Proceedings.

10. In the facts and circumstances of the present case and law laid down by the Apex Court, it is a fit case to exercise power under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, FIR No. 3 of 2014 dated 20.01.2014, registered at Police Station, Rajgarh, District Sirmaur, under Sections 498-A and 406, IPC and also criminal proceedings pending in consequence thereof in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ragarh, District Sirmaur, H.P. are quashed.

Petition is allowed in above terms.

(Vivek Singh Thakur) Judge August 30, 2017 *brb* ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2017 23:26:17 :::HCHP 9 .

::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2017 23:26:17 :::HCHP