Himachal Pradesh High Court
Ved Prakash & Ors vs State Of Hp & Anr on 19 April, 2023
Author: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Bench: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr.MMO No.208 of 2023 Decided on: 19th April, 2023 .
_________________________________________________________________ Ved Prakash & Ors. ....Petitioners Versus State of HP & anr. ...Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Hon'ble Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge 1 Whether approved for reporting?
For the petitioners:
r to _________________________________________________________________ Mr. Binat Sharma and Mr. Hemant Thakur, Advocates.
For the respondents: Mr. Rupinder Singh Thakur and Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocates General, for respondent No.1.
Mr. Rahul, Advocate, for respondent No.2.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Petitioner No.3 and respondent No.2 are husband and wife. Petitioner No.3 has moved this petition through his father-Special Power of Attorney. Petitioners No.1 and 2 are father and mother of petitioner No.3. They have prayed for quashing of FIR No. 29/2022, dated 19.02.2022, registered under Sections 498A of the Indian Penal Code, at Women 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2023 20:41:58 :::CIS -2-Police Station Una, District Una H.P. and and setting aside the consequent judicial proceedings..
2. Petitioners No.1 & 2 and respondent No.2 have .
attended today's proceedings. They have been identified by their respective learned counsel. In terms of separate statements recorded today of respondent No.2 as well as petitioners No.1 & 2, including statement of petitioner No.1 on behalf of petitioner No.3, being his Special Power of Attorney, the parties have stated to have executed compromise deeds on 09.12.2022 and 23.02.2023. In terms of the compromise, respondent-wife has expressed her unwillingness to pursue the FIR in question. Even in her statement recorded today, respondent No.2/complainant has stated that she does not want to continue with the FIR and has no objection in case the FIR in question is quashed and the resultant criminal proceedings are set aside.
3. The law laid down in respect of exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing or for refusing to quash the FIR and resultant proceedings on the basis of compromise effected by the parties laid down in (2012) 10 SCC 303 titled Gian Singh ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2023 20:41:58 :::CIS -3- vs. State of Punjab; (2014) 6 SCC 466 titled Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab; (2017) 9 SCC 641 titled as Parbatbhai Aahir vs. State of Gujarat, has been noticed .
again by Hon'ble Apex Court in (2019) 5 SCC 688, titled as State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan with following observations:-
" 15 . Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of this Court on the point, referred to hereinabove, it is observed and held as under:
15.1 That the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable offences under Section 320 r of the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves;
15.2. Such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society;
15.3 Similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender;
15.4 Offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act etc. would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal proceedings for the offence under Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act etc. which have a ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2023 20:41:58 :::CIS -4- serious impact on the society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code, on the ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst themselves. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a .
mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to framing the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc. However, such an exercise by the High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and the charge sheet is filed/charge is framed and/or during the trial. Such exercise is not r permissible when the matter is still under investigation. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in paragraphs 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in the case of Narinder Singh (supra) should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove;
15.5 While exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non-compoundable offences, which are private in nature and do not have a serious impart on society, on the ground that there is a settlement/ compromise between the victim and the offender, the High Court is required to consider the antecedents of the accused;
the conduct of the accused, namely, whether the accused was absconding and why he was absconding, how he had managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise."
4. Petitioners No.1 and 2 are parents of petitioner No.3 and respondent No.2 is wife of petitioner No.3, Sahil Dhingra. Respondent No.2 is the complainant in the FIR in ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2023 20:41:58 :::CIS -5- question. The offence alleged in the FIR does not fall in the prohibited category under the afore extracted law. As per compromise deeds, the parties have resolved their personal .
and mutual disputes amicably with the intervention of their elders and relatives as stated by the respondent-wife and Special Power of Attorney of petitioner No.3-husband. It is stated by the parties that petitioner No.3-Sahil Dhingra and respondent No.2 have now filed a petition under Section 13B of Hindu Marriage Act before the learned Family Court at Ambala for dissolution of their marriage.
5. Considering the fact that the petitioner No.3-Sahil Dhingra and respondent No.2 now have decided to live separately from each other, both of them have jointly preferred a petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage for dissolution of their marriage and that respondent No.2 (complainant) does not wish to pursue the complaint/FIR any further, no useful purpose will be served by continuing the proceedings arising out of the FIR in question. The possibility of conviction in such circumstances would be very very remote. The continuation of proceedings will be to the detriment of the petitioner-husband and his parents causing ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2023 20:41:58 :::CIS -6- them unnecessary harassment and injustice. When the complainant does not want to hold the accused persons responsible, then quashing of such FIR, more so in the facts .
and circumstances of the case, would certainly be in the interest of justice.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed. FIR No. 29/2022 dated 19.09.2022, registered at Women Police Station Una, District Una H.P., under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code is quashed. Consequent proceedings, if any, are set aside.
The pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge April 19, 2023 R.Atal ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2023 20:41:58 :::CIS