Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 691 (HP)

Pankaj Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2012-10-08

KULDIP SINGH

body2012
Judgment Kuldip Singh, J 1. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing FIR No. 47 dated 8.4.2011, registered at Police Station, Amb under Sections 498A, 34 IPC, and consequential criminal proceedings arising out of the said FIR pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Amb. The petitioner No.1 is the husband of respondent No.2, petitioners No.2 and 3 are the parents of petitioner No.1. 2. It has been stated that petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2, solemnized their marriage on 10.11.2009. The respondent No.2 lodged FIR No.47 dated 8.4.2011 at Police Station, Amb. The petitioners filed petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C being Cr.MMO No.60 of 2012 in the High Court for quashing FIR No.47 dated 8.4.2011. In the meantime, the Investigating Agency had filed challan in the Court in FIR No.47 dated 8.4.2011. The High Court permitted the withdrawal of Cr.MMO No.60 of 2012 on 12.6.2012 with liberty to challenge the FIR and proceedings before the learned Judicial Magistrate. The petitioners have thus filed the present petition. 3. It has been stated that with the intervention of the respectable persons of the illaqua the petitioners and respondent No.2 have compromised their dispute. A copy of compromise has been placed on record. The respondent No.2 has agreed to withdraw the case filed by her. The petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 have agreed to live together without any bickering. The submission has been made that FIR No.47 dated 8.4.2011 and proceedings pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amb may be quashed. On 31.8.2012 respondent No.2 put in appearance through her counsel in the Court. The respondent No.2 has filed separate affidavit. The counsel for respondent No.2 has stated that respondent No.2 has no objection, if FIR No.47 dated 8.4.2011, registered at Police Station, Amb and consequential criminal proceedings are quashed. 4. Heard. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that with the intervention of the respectable persons the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 have settled their dispute, a copy of compromise has been placed on record. He has submitted that petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 have agreed to live peacefully. He has submitted that in view of settlement of dispute, FIR No. 47 dated 8.4.2011, registered at Police Station, Amb and consequential criminal proceedings may be quashed in the interest of justice. The learned Addl. He has submitted that petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 have agreed to live peacefully. He has submitted that in view of settlement of dispute, FIR No. 47 dated 8.4.2011, registered at Police Station, Amb and consequential criminal proceedings may be quashed in the interest of justice. The learned Addl. Advocate General has submitted that challan has alr eady been submitted in the Court who has taken the cognizance that no case for quashing the FIR and criminal proceeding has been made out. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 has stated that respondent No.2 has no objection in case the petition is allowed. 5. The petition itself is supported by affidavits of petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2. The perusal of copy of compromise indicates that petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 have agreed to live together peacefully; petitioner No.1 will not torture the respondent No.2. It will be open to respondent No.2 to proceed in accordance with law and to approach the department of petitioner No.1 in case of any grievance. The respondent No.2 has agreed to withdraw the case under Section 498-A IPC filed by her against petitioner No.1, a copy of FIR No.47 dated 8.4.2011, Police Station, Amb has also been placed on record. The respondent No.1 in the reply has stated that learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Court No.1 Amb has taken cognizance and therefor e, the petition has become infructuous. The respondent No.2 in the reply has stated that she has already supported the petition by her affidavit. She has prayed for quashing of the FIR and consequential criminal proceedings. 6. In B.S. Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana and another AIR 2003 Supreme Court 1386, it has been held that powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are not, in any manner controlled by Section 320 of the Code. This has again been reiterated by the Supreme Court in Shiji alias Pappu and others vs. Radhika and another 2011 (10) SCC 705 . In Criminal Case No. 178-1/1999 under Sections 498-A, 323, 506, 109 IPC the case pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (II) Una was quashed by learned Single Judge. In Rajinder Singh and others vs. State of H.P. and another 2004 (2) SLC 5 after the compromise between the parties the proceeding under Sections 498A, 34, 506 and 323 IPC pending in the Court was quashed. In Rajinder Singh and others vs. State of H.P. and another 2004 (2) SLC 5 after the compromise between the parties the proceeding under Sections 498A, 34, 506 and 323 IPC pending in the Court was quashed. 7. The parties have settled their dispute and even a copy of compromise has been placed on record. The respondent No.2 has filed affidavit in support of the petition, she has filed separate affidavit and has no objection for quashing the FIR No. 47 dated 8.4.2011 and consequential criminal proceeding. In Joseph Salvaraja vs. State of Gujrat and others (2011) 7 SCC 59 , the appellant had filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code in the High Court with a prayer for quashing of FIR dated 5.9.2006 and to stay further investigation in the case. The said application came to be considered on 11.1.2007. By that time, charge-sheet was already filed before the competent criminal court. The High Court was of the opinion that it was not a fit case to be entertained and refused to hear the petition on merits, even though the appellant was given liberty to file an application for his discharge before the trial Court. The appellant’s petition was dismissed. The Supreme Court held that looking into the matter from all angles, the prosecution of the appellant for commission of the alleged offences would be clear abuse of the process of law. The FIR dated 5.9.2006 was quashed and all criminal proceedings emanating therefrom were also quashed. 8. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am satisfied that the matter has been settled between the parties. In view of subsequent development and that the dispute has been settled between the parties, it appears now even respondent No.2 will not support her criminal case, no purpose will be served for continuation of criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No. 47 dated 8.4.2011, registered at Police Station, Amb. In order to keep the harmony between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 and in the interest of justice the criminal proceeding arising out of FIR No. 47 dated 8.4.2011, registered at Police Station, Amb cannot be allowed to continue further. In order to keep the harmony between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 and in the interest of justice the criminal proceeding arising out of FIR No. 47 dated 8.4.2011, registered at Police Station, Amb cannot be allowed to continue further. The , petition is allowed, FIR No. 47 dated 8.4.2011, registered at Police Station, Amb, under Sections 498A, 34 IPC and consequential criminal proceedings arising out of the said FIR pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No.1,Amb are quashed.