Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 972 (HP)

Jasbir Singh v. State of H. P.

2014-07-24

P.S.RANA

body2014
ORDER Present petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 for invoking inherent power to quash FIR No. 278 of 2008 dated 10.11.2008 registered with Police Station Haroli under Sections 498-A, 406, 323, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and for quashing criminal proceedings of case Number 124-1/2009 pending before Judicial Magistrate Ist Class Court No.2 Una HP. 2. It is pleaded that applicants are permanent resident of village Mahain District Roper (Punjab). It is pleaded that compromise was executed between applicants and complainant on 26.04.2014 for amicable settlement of matrimonial disputes including withdrawal of all criminal cases filed by the parties. It is pleaded that marriage was solemnized between Sukhvinder kaur and Jasbir Singh on 27.1.2008. It is further pleaded that no issue born from the wedlock of Jasbir Singh and Sukhvinder Kaur. It is further pleaded that on account of different habits and temperaments Jasbir Singh and Sukhvinder Kaur could not reside together. It is further pleaded that Sukhvinder Kaur filed FIR No. 278 of 2008 dated 10.11.2008 under Sections 498-A, 406, 323 and 506 IPC read with Section 34 IPC at Police Station Haroli HP against the applicants. It is further pleaded that applicant No.1 is the husband of complainant Sukhvinder Kaur, applicants No. 2 and 3 are father-in-law and mother-in-law of the complainant, applicant No.4 is the brother-in-law of the complainant, applicant No.5 is the wife of Balwinder Singh, applicant No.6 is the sister-in-law of complainant. It is further pleaded that Jasbir Singh filed petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of his marriage. It is further pleaded that Sukhvinder Kaur also filed petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. It is further pleaded that thereafter Jasbir Singh and Sukhvinder kaur decided to dissolve their marriage on mutual consent basis and petition filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act was converted into petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act. It is further pleaded that mutual compromise deed dated 26.4.2014 was presented before learned Additional District Judge at Mohali and thereafter learned Additional District Judge at Mohali passed decree of divorce on mutual consent basis under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act. It is further pleaded that Jasbir Singh and Sukhvinder Kaur have settled their all matrimonial disputes. It is further pleaded that mutual compromise deed dated 26.4.2014 was presented before learned Additional District Judge at Mohali and thereafter learned Additional District Judge at Mohali passed decree of divorce on mutual consent basis under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act. It is further pleaded that Jasbir Singh and Sukhvinder Kaur have settled their all matrimonial disputes. It is further pleaded that as maintenance allowance Sukhvinder Kaur had received a sum of Rs.6,35,000/- (Six lacs thirty five thousands) out of which Rs.5,50,000/- (Five lacs fifty thousands) had received vide draft No. 746620 dated 26.4.2014 and remaining amount of Rs.85,000/- (Eighty five thousands) was received in cash. Prayer for acceptance of petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 sought. 3. Per contra reply filed on behalf of the State pleaded therein that marriage was solemnized inter se Jasbir Singh and Sukhvinder Kaur on dated 27.1.2008. It is further pleaded that thereafter applicants maltreated Sukhvinder Kaur after marriage physically as well mentally. It is further pleaded that thereafter Sukhvinder Kaur approached learned Judicial Magistrate Court No.2 Una under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and learned Court directed the officials of Police Station Haroli to investigate the matter. It is further pleaded that as per direction of learned Judicial Magistrate Court No.2 Una case FIR No. 278 of 2008 was registered on dated 10.11.2008 under Sections 498-A, 406, 323, 506 read with Section 34 IPC at Police Station Haroli District Una (HP). It is further pleaded that case was thoroughly investigated by the investigating agency and after completion of investigation Station House Officer Haroli prepared report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. and thereafter same was filed in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Court No.2 Una on dated 10.4.2009. It is further pleaded that case is still under adjudication process and has been fixed for prosecution evidence on 19.9.2014. It is further pleaded that it is not in public interest to quash the proceedings on the basis of compromise. Prayer for dismissal of application sought. 4. Following points arise for determination in the present application: (1) Whether petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of application. (2) Final Order. 5. Prayer for dismissal of application sought. 4. Following points arise for determination in the present application: (1) Whether petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of application. (2) Final Order. 5. Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of applicants, learned Assistant Advocate General appearing on behalf of State and court also heard complainant who appeared before Court in person. Finding upon Point No.1. 6. All applicants namely Jasbir Singh, Surinder Singh, Smt. Surinder kaur, Balwinder Singh, Smt. Sukhjit Kaur and Smt. Amrit Kaur appeared before this Court personally on dated 21.7.2014 and complainant Sukhvinder kaur also appeared before Court on dated 21.7.2014. Complainant Sukhvinder kaur has stated that she has filed FIR No. 278 of 2008 dated 10.11.2008 against the applicants under Sections 498-A,406, 323, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian penal Code. Complainant has stated that she has obtained divorce under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act from her husband namely Jasbir Singh from competent Court of law. She has further stated that she does not want to continue with the trial of Case No. 124-1/2009 pending before Judicial Magistrate Ist Class Court No.2 Una as well as FIR No. 278 of 2008 dated 10.11.2008 in view of the compromise executed between the parties and same be quashed. Court has carefully perused the statement of complainant dated 5.5.2014 recorded by learned Additional District Judge at Mohali. Complainant Sukhvinder kaur has stated before learned Additional District Judge at Mohali that she had received an amount of Rs.5,50,000/- (Five lacs fifty thousands) from her husband Jasbir Singh by way of draft No. 746620 dated 26.4.2014 and also received Rs.85,000/- (Eighty five thousands) by way of cash in Court. She has also stated before learned Additional District Judge at Mohali that she would make statement before High Court of HP at Shimla for quashing of FIR No.278 of 2008 registered at Police Station Haroli under Section 498-A, 406, 323, 506 read with Section 34 IPC. It was held in case reported in 2014 (1) Him.L.R.380 titled Vishal Nanda Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another that it is duty of the Court to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes. It was held that High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR. It was held in case reported in 2014 (1) Him.L.R.380 titled Vishal Nanda Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another that it is duty of the Court to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes. It was held that High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR. It was held that Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 did not effect the powers of High Court vested under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. It was held in the case cited supra that criminal proceedings would be abuse of process of Court when the parties have entered into compromise irrespective of fact that one of criminal offence was non compoundable. Also see AIR 2003 SC 1386 titled B.S.Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another. Also see AIR 2013 SC 518 titled Dimpey Gujral and others Vs. Union Territory Through Administrator U.T.Chandigarh and others. In view of the fact that complainant had received an amount of Rs. 6,35,000/- (Six lacs thirty five thousands) from her husband namely Jasbir Singh as full and final settlement and in view of the fact that complainant herself has given statement before the Court by way of appearing personally that FIR No. 278 of 2008 dated 10.11.2008 and criminal proceedings qua Trial No. 124-1/2009 pending before learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class Court No.2 Una be quashed, it is expedient in the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of process of Court to allow present petition filed by applicants under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. Hence point No.1 is answered in affirmative in favour of the applicants. Finding upon Point No.2. 7. In view of the above stated facts petition filed by applicants under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 is allowed and FIR No. 278 of 2008 dated 10.11.2008 registered at Police Station Haroli District Una HP under Sections 498-A, 406, 323, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and criminal proceedings of Case No.124-1/2009 pending before learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class Court No.2 Una are quashed with immediate effect under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. Petition is accordingly disposed of. All pending applications if any are also disposed of.