Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1789 (HP)

Samuel Masih v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2014-12-02

SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2014
JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. An FIR bearing No.141 of 2010 of 16.04.2010, under Sections 363, 366 A and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code was lodged in Police Station, Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P. by respondent No.4, Ravinder Kumar, who was proceeded against ex-parte. On registration of the FIR by Ravinder Kumar against petitioner No.1, investigation into the offences alleged against the accused therein commenced. A perusal of the record reveals that contemporaneous to the commencement of investigation, petitioner No.1/accused and petitioner No.2/victim of the crime solemnized marriage on 28.04.2011. Copy of the marriage certificate of 16.05.2012 has been placed on record as Annexure P-1. Out of the said wedlock the petitioners have one issue. The factual matrix aforesaid does communicate the fact that both the petitioner No.1/accused and petitioner No.2/victim of the crime have solemnized marriage and now are living connubial bliss. It ought to be the endeavour of the Court to ensure that the matrimonial life of married partners is both peaceful and amiable besides, endeavour should be made to ensure that the married partners live in peace and harmony. The husband and wife have demonstrated their willingness to live in peace and harmony as divulged by the aforesaid material. Theirs concerted attempt to abort turbulences in their family ought to be revered. The fact that the complainant/respondent NO.4 allowed himself to be proceeded against ex-parte, hence, omitted to contest the petition portrays that he projects no remonstrance to the aspiration and desire of both the accused/petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.2/victim of the crime for quashing of the FIR. 2. Theirs concerted attempt to abort turbulences in their family ought to be revered. The fact that the complainant/respondent NO.4 allowed himself to be proceeded against ex-parte, hence, omitted to contest the petition portrays that he projects no remonstrance to the aspiration and desire of both the accused/petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.2/victim of the crime for quashing of the FIR. 2. Even though, the marriage as has been solemnized inter se the victim of the crime/petitioner No.2 and petitioner No.1/accused has sequelled the institution of the instant joint petition on their behalf for according the relief of quashing of the FIR against the accused yet reliefs as prayed for in the petition would come to be afforded in favour of the petitioners only in the face of this Court being vested with apposite powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The beacon of light in guiding this Court to exercise its jurisdiction vested under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., inasmuch as to what considerations ought to be borne in mind while exercising powers vested in this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., are encapsulated in the judgment of the Apex Court reported in B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, (2003)4 SCC 675 wherein it has been held that in so far as disputes, both civil and criminal arising out of the matrimonial strife are concerned, they stand on a footing/pedestal and distinct from other crimes which are committed against the society, inasmuch, as, when the marriage inter se the bickering parties is both sacrosanct and sacramental, as such, endeavour ought to be made to preserve it rather, than to unsettle. Further more, in the face of the verdict of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Gian Singh versus State of Punjab and another, (2012)10 SCC 303 the relevant paragraph whereof is extracted hereinafter mandating that where the victim of the offence and the accused come to record a settlement/strike a compromise even qua the offence which are not compoundable, hence would rather not pave way for the success of the complaint/prosecution, rather the prosecution of the offender for his having committed the alleged non-compoundable, would be an exercise in futility is a preponderant and preeminent factory to be borne in mind by this Court while exercising the plenary jurisdiction vested in it under Section 482, Cr.P.C. Relevant paragraph No.58 of the judgment supra reads as under: “58. Whether the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that the dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled although the offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put on an end and peace is resorted; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. No doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful effect on the public and consist in wrongdoing that seriously endangers and threats the well being of the society and it is not safe to leave the crime-doer only because he and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the victim has been paid compensation, yet certain crimes have been made compoundable in law, with or without the permission of the Court. In respect of serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., or other offences of mental depravity under IPC or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by the public servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between the offender and the victim can have no legal sanction at all. However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions of the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc., or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to the victim and the offender and the victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or FIR if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated. The above list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Each case will depend on its own facts and no hard-and-fast category can be prescribed.” 3. The above list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Each case will depend on its own facts and no hard-and-fast category can be prescribed.” 3. For preserving the institution of marriage and for maintaining peace, inter se the parties, who now constitute one family and who have jointly moved this Court for quashing of the FIR, this Court to maintain equilibrium in the family, who have chosen or shown their desire to live in unison, peace and harmony, hence, when the exercise of inherent powers vested in this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR qua disputes which are purely matrimonial in nature is neither trammeled nor restricted, rather is a plenary power to be exercised in matrimonial disputes for halting bickerings and for facilitating peace and harmony in the family, as such, this Court is constrained to exercise it. More so, even if, assuming that the some of the offences constituted in the FIR may not be compoundable, nonetheless in the face of the verdict of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in Gian Singh versus State of Punjab and another (supra) investing a jurisdiction in this Court for restoring peace and amity inter se the parties as also for putting at rest their disputes, besides when given the fact that the victim of the crime and the accused having entered into a wedlock imminently conveying striking of or arrival of compromise inter se them, would frustrate the prosecution case, as such, this Court is constrained to even in the face of non-compoundability of the some of the offences constituted in the FIR to accept the concerted striving of the victim and the accused/petitioner portrayed by theirs having entered into a wedlock to live hereafter in peace and harmony. Obviously, then the pendency of the FIR would frustrate such an endeavour. It ought to be quashed. Consequently, the petition is allowed and the FIR bearing No.141 of 2010 of 16.04.2010, under Sections 363, 366 A and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code lodged in Police Station, Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P. is quashed. All the pending applications also stand disposed of.