Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 945 (HP)

Jawahar Lal Nanda v. State of H. P

2012-12-06

KULDIP SINGH

body2012
JUDGMENT Kuldip Singh, Judge. This petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing FIR No. 297 dated 18.12.2010 registered at Police Station Sadar, Solan and also for quashing proceedings in case No. 186/2/11 State Vs. Jawahar Lal Nanda, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class (Court No.1), Kasauli. 2. The facts in brief are that respondent No. 2 Niddhi Nanda was married to Vishal Nanda son of petitioner No. 1. The petitioner No.2 is brother, petitioner No. 3 is mother and petitioner No.4 is sister-in-law, respectively of Vishal Nanda. The marriage of Vishal Nanda and respondent No. 2 was solemnized on 29.11.2002. After a few years of marriage, the relations between respondent No.2 and Vishal Nanda became strained. The petitioners made sincere efforts to restore matrimonial harmony between Vishal Nanda and respondent No. 2 but to no avail. The matrimonial discord between Vishal Nanda and respondent No. 2 affected the day to day life of the petitioners. In these circumstances, petitioner No. 1 told Vishal Nanda to make separate arrangement for himself and his wife. Vishal Nanda started residing separately with respondent No. 2 at House No. 855, Sector No.12, Panchkula. 3. The relations between Vishal Nanda and respondent No. 2 did not improve. The respondent No.2 got FIR No. 297 dated 18.12.2010 registered at Police Station, Solan (women cell) under sections 498-A, 506, 34 IPC against Vishal Nanda, petitioners were also dragged in the said FIR. 4. A compromise was arrived at between the parties voluntarily at Solan on 9.1.2011 to bring to an end all disputes. As per compromise jewellery of respondent No. 2 lying in the locker of petitioner No. 1 was to be returned to her; a sum of `40,00,000/-was to be paid to respondent No.2 and her minor son; custody of the minor son was to remain with respondent No.2. It was agreed that divorce between Vishal Nanda and respondent No. 2 was to be obtained in accordance with law. 5. The terms of the compromise were honoured by the petitioners, a sum of `20,00,000/- was paid to respondent No. 2 by banker’s cheque No. 819545 dated 19.2.2011 drawn at State Bank of India. A sum of `10,00,000/- each was paid to minor son master Arjun Nanda of respondent No.2 vide demand draft No. 793228 dated 19.2.2011 and cheque No. 819547 dated 21.2.2011. The cheques were duly honoured. 6. A sum of `10,00,000/- each was paid to minor son master Arjun Nanda of respondent No.2 vide demand draft No. 793228 dated 19.2.2011 and cheque No. 819547 dated 21.2.2011. The cheques were duly honoured. 6. The respondent No.2 filed HM Petition No. 2-S/3 of 2011, which was allowed on 29.10.2011 by learned District Judge, Solan and the marriage of Vishal Nanda and respondent No. 2 was dissolved by a decree of divorce. The respondent No. 2 moved an application to Deputy Commissioner, Solan for permission to compound the offence under section 498-A etc., but the fate of said application was not known to the petitioners. On the basis of FIR No. 297 dated 18.12.2010, the proceedings are pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class (Court No.1), Kasauli in case No. 186/2/11 State vs. Jawahar Lal Nanda etc. 7. It has been stated that in view of settlement between petitioners, Vishal Nanda and respondent No. 2, the continuation of proceedings in case No. 186/2/11 would be futile. The respondent No. 2 would be left with the course to resile from her previous statement. This would amount to encourage perjury, which would further defeat the ends of justice. The petitioners, Vishal Nanda and respondent No. 2 have voluntarily decided to forget their past and live peacefully in future. The submission has been made for quashing the FIR and the proceedings pending in the court. 8. The respondent No. 1 has filed the reply and has stated that FIR No. 297 dated 18.12.2010 was registered at Police Station, Solan at the instance of respondent No. 2. On completion of investigation, prima-facie, case under section 498-A, 506 read with section 34 IPC was made out against the petitioners. The challan was presented in the trial court on 29.10.2011, which is pending. The respondent No. 2 had moved an application to the Superintendent of Police requesting to compound the offence as she was not interested in pursuing the aforesaid FIR. The respondent No. 2 had made a statement before the investigating officer on 23.7.2010 reiterating her stand that she was not interested in pursuing the aforesaid FIR. The respondent No. 1 submitted for passing appropriate order in the interest of justice. The respondent No. 2 has not filed reply. 9. The respondent No. 2 put in appearance through her counsel in the court on 6.8.2012. The respondent No. 1 submitted for passing appropriate order in the interest of justice. The respondent No. 2 has not filed reply. 9. The respondent No. 2 put in appearance through her counsel in the court on 6.8.2012. On 16.8.2012 on behalf of respondent No. 2, it was stated by her counsel that respondent No. 2 does not want to file reply to the petition. The counsel for respondent No. 2 has stated that he will argue the petition on the basis of material already on record. 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The marriage between Vishal Nanda and respondent No. 2 was solemnized on 29.11.2002, a son was born from the wedlock. It appears after the marriage the respondent No.2 started living with Vishal Nanda in the house of petitioner No. 1 at Panchkula, but later on differences developed between respondent No. 2 and Vishal Nanda. This affected the peaceful environment of the family, the petitioner No. 1 asked Vishal Nanda to make arrangement for separate residence for himself and his wife respondent No. 2. Thereupon Vishal Nanda and respondent No. 2 started residing separately at Panchkula. It appears there was no improvement in the matrimonial relations of Vishal Nanda and respondent No. 2, rather their relations further deteriorated. The respondent No. 2 lodged an FIR No. 297 dated 18.12.2010, under sections 498-A, 506 read with 34 IPC at Police Station, Solan against Vishal Nanda and others. On completion of investigation, challan was submitted in the court on 29.10.2011 and now case No. 186/2/11 is pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class (Court No.1), Kasauli. 11. It appears subsequently the matter was settled by way of compromise on 9.1.2011, a copy of compromise/ agreement dated 9.1.2011 has been placed on record. In fact, the compromise was entered into between petitioner No. 1 and Kamal Anand father of respondent No. 2. As per compromise, the jewellery mentioned in the compromise was to be returned by petitioner No. 1. A sum of `40,00,000/- by way of two FDRs, one in the name of respondent No. 2 and other in the name of minor shall be paid by petitioner No.1. The custody of the minor shall remain with the mother. The divorce will be obtained from the court as per law. 12. A sum of `40,00,000/- by way of two FDRs, one in the name of respondent No. 2 and other in the name of minor shall be paid by petitioner No.1. The custody of the minor shall remain with the mother. The divorce will be obtained from the court as per law. 12. It has been stated in the petition that in terms of compromise `20,00,000/- were paid to respondent No. 2 on 19.2.2011. A sum of `10,00,000/- each was paid to minor son of respondent No. 2 by way of draft dated 19.2.2011 and cheque dated 21.2.2011. The respondent No. 2 filed HM Petition No.2-S/3 of 2011, which was allowed by learned District Judge, Solan on 29.10.2011 and the marriage between respondent No. 2 and Vishal Nanda has been dissolved by a decree of divorce. The respondent No.2 moved an application to Deputy Commissioner, Solan, a copy of which has been placed on record for permission to compound the offence under section 498-A IPC etc. 13. In the application to Deputy Commissioner, Solan, it has been stated that a compromise has been arrived at between the parties. It has been stated that as per settlement the custody of minor will remain with respondent No.2, she has received the dowry articles. She has also received maintenance of minor as well as herself and her dowry claim has been settled. She has requested for compounding of the matter in order to maintain cordial relations in the brotherhood. The respondent No. 2 on 23.7.2011 also made a separate statement before the investigating officer, a copy of such statement has also been placed on record. She has stated that she has lodged FIR No. 297 dated 18.12.2010 under sections 498-A, 506, 34 IPC at Police Station, Solan. The matter has been settled. She has stated that she does not want to pursue the case. The learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has submitted that compromise dated 9.1.2011 was between petitioner No.1 and respondent No. 2. The divorce decree dated 29.10.2011 is exparte at the instance of respondent. On the basis of request made to Deputy Commissioner for compounding the offences, no further action has been taken. The statement dated 23.7.2011 of respondent No. 2 has not been proved. These submissions have no force. The respondent No.2 has not filed reply. 14. The divorce decree dated 29.10.2011 is exparte at the instance of respondent. On the basis of request made to Deputy Commissioner for compounding the offences, no further action has been taken. The statement dated 23.7.2011 of respondent No. 2 has not been proved. These submissions have no force. The respondent No.2 has not filed reply. 14. The compromise dated 9.1.2011 was arrived at between petitioner No.1 father of Vishal Nanda and Kamal Anand father of respondent No.2, but it is clear from the material on record that in fact agreement/ compromise dated 9.1.2011 has been entered into between petitioner No.1 and Kamal Anand on behalf of Vishal Nanda and respondent No.2. It is also clear from the material on record that terms of agreement/ compromise dated 9.1.2011 have been complied by the petitioner. The marriage between Vishal Nanda and respondent NO.2 has been dissolved by a decree of divorce dated 29.10.2011. The respondent No.2 moved an application to Deputy Commissioner, Solan for compounding the case. On 23.10.2011, respondent No. 2 made a separate statement before the investigating officer in FIR No. 297 showing her intention not to proceed with the case. It is thus clear that respondent No. 2 has now completely settled the matter with the petitioners. 15. 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 498-A, 34, 506 and 323 IPC pending in the Court was quashed. 16. In the present case FIR No. 297 dated 18.12.2010 was registered at police station Solan at the instance of respondent No.2. It appears matrimonial life of Vishal Nanda and respondent No. 2 got disturbed, they could not pull together. 16. In the present case FIR No. 297 dated 18.12.2010 was registered at police station Solan at the instance of respondent No.2. It appears matrimonial life of Vishal Nanda and respondent No. 2 got disturbed, they could not pull together. The respondent No.2 had filed divorce petition under section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, which has been allowed on 29.10.2011. 17. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am satisfied that the matter has been settled between petitioners and respondent No.2. In view of stand now taken by the petitioners and respondent No.2, the continuation of case arising out of FIR No. 297 dated 18.12.2010 registered at Police Station, Solan will be an exercise in futility. It appears respondent No.2 and her witnesses very likely will not support the prosecution case. 18. In view of above, in the interest of justice, it is a fit case where FIR No. 297 dated 18.12.2010 registered at Police Station, Solan and Criminal Case No. 186/2/11 arising out of said FIR and pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class (Court No.1) Kasauli are liable to be quashed. Hence, petition is allowed, FIR No. 297 dated 18.12.2010 registered at Police Station, Solan, under sections 498-A, 506, 34 IPC and criminal case arising out of the said FIR pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class (Court No.1), Kasauli, Distt. Solan are quashed against petitioners. The petition is disposed of on above terms.