Himachal Pradesh High Court
Kushal Kumar And Another vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Another on 19 June, 2023
Author: Sushil Kukreja
Bench: Sushil Kukreja
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,
SHIMLA
.
Cr.MMO No.1129 of 2022
Date of Decision: 19.06.2023
__________________________________________________________
Kushal Kumar and another
....Petitioners
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & another
...Respondents
___________________________________________________________
Coram r
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge
Whether approved for reporting?1
_________________________________________________________
For the petitioners : Mr. Naveen Kumar Dhiman,
Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. B.N. Sharma, Mr. Raj Kumar
Negi, and Mr. Jitender Sharma,
Additional Advocates General for
respondent No.1.
Mr. Panku Chaudhary, Advocate,
for respondent No. 2.
_________________________________________________________
Sushil Kukreja, Judge (Oral)
The accused (petitioners herein), after compromising the matter with complainant-respondent No.2 have come up before this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), by invoking 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 22/06/2023 20:31:57 :::CIS 2inherent powers of this Court, seeking quashing of FIR .
No.19/2020, dated 02.03.2020, under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), registered at Police Station Chirgaon, District Shimla, H.P.
2. The present FIR was lodged by Complainant-
respondent No.2, who is duly represented and identified by Mr. Panku Chaudhary, Advocate.
3. The statements of respondent No.2 as well as the petitioners have been separately recorded and placed on the file.
4. Complainant/respondent No.2 Keshav Ram has stated that on his complaint, F.I.R. bearing No.19/2020, dated 02.03.2020 was registered against the petitioner No.1 at Police Station Chirgaon, District Shimla, H.P., under Section 363, IPC. He further stated that petitioner No.2 is his daughter and she has married with petitioner No.1. Now both of them are residing together as husband and wife and out of their wedlock, a girl child was also born on 08.02.2021. Therefore, he has no objection, if the ::: Downloaded on - 22/06/2023 20:31:57 :::CIS 3 aforesaid FIR and the consequent proceedings arising out .
of the said FIR pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Rohru, District Shimla, H.P., are quashed and set aside.
5. Similarly, petitioners No.1 and 2 have stated that on the basis of complaint of respondent No.2, F.I.R.
bearing No.19/2020, dated 02.03.2020 was registered at Police Station Chirgaon, District Shimla, H.P., under Section 363, IPC. They further stated that they have married with each other and now both of them are residing together happily as husband and wife and out of their wedlock, a girl child was also born on 08.02.2021. The petitioner No.2 further stated that she has no objection, if the aforesaid FIR and the consequent proceedings arising out of the said FIR pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Rohru, District Shimla, H.P., are quashed and set aside.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Additional Advocate General for respondent ::: Downloaded on - 22/06/2023 20:31:57 :::CIS 4 No.1/State as well as the learned counsel for respondent .
No.2 and also gone through the material available on record.
7. 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 offences 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 etc. should not be quashed despite victim or victim's family have settled the ::: Downloaded on - 22/06/2023 20:31:57 :::CIS 5 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.
8. 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 ::: Downloaded on - 22/06/2023 20:31:57 :::CIS 6 recognized that these powers are not inhibited by .
provisions of Section 320, Cr.P.C.
9. 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.
10. 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 ::: Downloaded on - 22/06/2023 20:31:57 :::CIS 7 approach, based on ground of realities and bereft of the .
technicalities of law, should be applied.
11. 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 No.1-accused as continuation of the proceedings will be an exercise in futility as both the petitioners have now married with each other and they are residing together happily as husband and wife alongwith their child under one roof.
12. Hence, considering the facts and the circumstances of the case in entirety, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves to be allowed for securing the ends of justice and, therefore, the same is allowed. Accordingly, FIR No.19/2020, dated 02.03.2020, registered against the petitioner No.1, under Section 363 of IPC, at Police Station Chirgaon, District Shimla, H.P., as well as consequent proceedings arising out of the said FIR, ::: Downloaded on - 22/06/2023 20:31:57 :::CIS 8 pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial .
Magistrate, Court No.1, Rohru, District Shimla, H.P., are ordered to be quashed and set-aside.
13. The petition stands disposed of in above terms, so also the pending application(s), if any.
( Sushil Kukreja )
June 19, 2023 Judge
(subhash)
::: Downloaded on - 22/06/2023 20:31:57 :::CIS