Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 849 (HP)

Karan Dadhwal v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2012-11-19

KULDIP SINGH

body2012
Judgment Kuldip Singh, J. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing FIR No. 135 of 2009 dated 27.9.2009, registered at Police Station, Amb under Sections 498A, 506, 406,34 IPC and also for quashing consequent Criminal Case No.7-1 of 2010 pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Court No.1, Amb. 2. It has been stated that petitioner No.1 is the husband and the petitioners No.2 and 3 are father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively of respondent No.2. The marriage between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 was solemnized on 11.11.1999. The petitioner No.1 was serving in Indo Tibet Border Police. After marriage petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 lived together as husband and wife and led a happy married life. 3. The petitioner No.1 was transferred to Chandigarh in the year 2007, respondent No.2 stayed with him for a few days at Chandigarh. Thereafter respondent No.2 withdrew herself from the society of the petitioner No.1 without sufficient cause and started living with her father in the village. The father of respondent No.2 had retired as Police Inspector in the year 2006. 4. The petitioners made several attempts to bring back respondent No.2 in the matrimonial home but failed, ultimately petition for divorce was filed by petitioner No.1 against respondent No.2 in the Court of learned District Judge, Hoshiarpur for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce. The respondent No.2 filed criminal cases under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and under Section 125 Cr.P.C. as well as FIR No.135 of 2009 dated 27.9.2009 at Police Station, Amb under Sections 498-A, 506, 406, 34 IPC. On the basis of FIR No.135 of 2009 dated 27.9.2009, criminal case No.7-1 of 2010 is pending against petitioners in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Court No.1, Amb. 5. The divorce petition filed by petitioner No.1 has been withdrawn. The respondent No.2 has received a sum of Rs.5,08,000/- in full and final settlement of all disputes with regard to marriage. The respondent No.2 has admitted to withdraw all pending litigations civil as well as criminal. The parties had filed mutual divorce petition under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short Act). The petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 made statements in the mutual divorce petition. The respondent No.2 has admitted to withdraw all pending litigations civil as well as criminal. The parties had filed mutual divorce petition under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short Act). The petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 made statements in the mutual divorce petition. It has been stated that in view of settlement between the parties the criminal case and FIR No.135 of 2009 dated 27.9.2009 may be quashed. On 1.10.2012, respondent No.2 appeared in the Court alongwith her counsel. 6. On instructions received from respondent No.2 her counsel on 1.10.2012 stated in the Court that respondent No.2 has no objection, if FIR No.135 of 2009, registered at Police Station, Amb and consequential proceedings pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Court No.1, Amb are quashed. The respondent No.2 has also filed affidavit dated 1.10.2012. In the affidavit respondent No.2 has stated that her marriage with petitioner No.1 could not run smoothly, many civil and criminal cases cropped up between them but those have been settled, the marriage has been dissolved and alimony of Rs.5,00,000/- has been received by her. She has no claim or complaint against the petitioners. She does not want to prosecute the criminal case. She has no objection, in case the petition is allowed and the criminal case is quashed. 7. Heard and perused the record. The marriage between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 was solemnized on 11.11.1999, disputes cropped up between the parties. The petitioner No.1 had filed petition under Section 13 of the Act which was withdrawn on 28.7.2012 in Lok Adalat. The respondent No.2 and petitioner No.1 then filed mutual divorce petition under Section 13B of the Act in the Court of learned District Judge, Hoshiarpur. It has been stated that respondent No.2 has received a sum of Rs.5,08,000/- in full and final settlement of her all disputes with regard to her marriage. In the affidavit dated 1.10.2012 the respondent has stated that she has no objection for granting the prayer made in the petition. 8. 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. 8. 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. 9. In the present case FIR No. 135 of 2009 dated 27.9.2009 has been registered at Police Station, Amb at the instance of respondent No. 2. It appears matrimonial life of petitioner No.1 and respondent No. 2 got disturbed, they could not pull together. The petitioner No.1 and respondent No. 2 have filed mutual divorce petition under Section 13B of the Act. The respondent No.2 has received Rs.5,08,000/- from petitioner No.1 in full and final settlement of her all matrimonial disputes. 10. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am satisfied that the matter has been settled between the parties. In view of stand now taken by petitioner No.1 and respondent No. 2 the continuation of case arising out of FIR No. 135 of 2009 dated 27.9.2009, registered at Police Station, Amb will be an exercise in futility. It appears respondent No.2 and her witnesses very likely will not support the prosecution case. 11. In view of above in the interest of justice, it is a fit case where FIR No. 135 of 2009 dated 27.9.2009, registered at Police Station, Amb and Criminal Case 7-1 of 2010 arising out of said FIR and pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court N0.1, Amb are liable to be quashed. Hence, petition is allowed, FIR No. 135 of 2009 dated 27.9.2009, registered at Police Station, Amb and Criminal Case 7-1 of 2010 arising out of said FIR and pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court N0.1, Amb are quashed.