Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1572 (HP)

Rashpal Singh v. Rimpi

2015-10-28

P.S.RANA

body2015
ORDER: P.S.Rana, Judge. Present petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 read with Article 227 of Constitution of India. Brief facts of case: 2. Non-petitioner No.1 Smt. Rimpi wife of Rashpal Singh filed FIR No.77 of 2013 dated 28.4.2013 under Section 498-A and 34 IPC against petitioners. Thereafter investigation was conducted and report of police officer on completion of investigation under section 173 code of criminal procedure 1973 was filed before the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Nalagarh District Solan HP. Learned trial Court listed the criminal case for consideration upon charge for 6.1.2016. Thereafter out of court settlement was executed inter se the parties placed on record as Annexure P2. It is pleaded that in view of out of Court settlement inter se the parties permission to compound case be granted while exercising inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.PC. 3. Per contra response filed on behalf of non-petitioner No.1 namely Smt. Rimpi pleaded therein that out of court settlement has been executed inter se the parties. It is further pleaded that Rash Pal Singh and Smt. Rimpi have obtained mutual divorce on dated 8.8.2015. It is further pleaded that non-petitioner No.1 Smt. Rimpi has no objection if proceedings before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Nalagarh District Solan HP in criminal case No. 106/2 of 2013 are quashed. 4. Per contra separate response filed on behalf of non-petitioner No. 2. It is pleaded that FIR was filed by non-petitioner No.1 and after investigation of case report of police officer on completion of investigation was filed before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Nalagarh for trial. It is further pleaded that appropriate order be passed. 5. Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioners, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of non-petitioner No.1 and learned Assistant Advocate General appearing on behalf of non-petitioner No.2 and also perused record carefully. 6. Following points arise for determination in the present petition. (1) Whether petition filed under Section 482 Cr.PC read with Article 227 of Constitution of India is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of petition?. (2) Final Order. Findings upon point No.1. 7. 6. Following points arise for determination in the present petition. (1) Whether petition filed under Section 482 Cr.PC read with Article 227 of Constitution of India is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of petition?. (2) Final Order. Findings upon point No.1. 7. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioners that out of Court settlement has been executed inter se the parties and permission to compound case while exercising inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.PC be granted is accepted for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is proved on record that compromise deed Ext P2 placed on record was executed between petitioners and non-petitioner No.1. There is recital in compromise deed that parties have compromised the dispute amicably. There is further recital in compromise deed Ext PW2 placed on record that parties would maintain peace in future and would also maintain good relations with each other in future. There is further recital in compromise deed Ext P2 placed on record that compromise has been executed inter se the parties without any pressure from any side. 8. Three Judges bench in case reported in 2012 (10) SCC 303 titled Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another held that power of High Court in quashing criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from power of criminal court of compounding offences under Section 320 Cr.PC. It was held by Hon’ble Apex Court of India that before exercise of inherent power under Section 482 Cr.PC High Court must have due regard to nature and gravity of crime and its societal impact. It was held that heinous and serious offences i.e. (1) Criminal offence of mental depravity (2) Criminal offence of murder (3) Criminal offence of rape (4) Criminal offence of dacoity (5) Criminal offence under Prevention of Corruption Act (6) Criminal offences committed by public servants while discharging their official duties could not be quashed even if out of Court settlement is executed between the victim family and offender. It was held that such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. It was held that such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. It was held that criminal offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil partnership or criminal offences arising out of matrimonial dispute or family disputes where wrong is basically private or personal in nature and where parties have resolved entire dispute High Court may quash criminal proceedings. Also see 2015 (8) SCC 307 titled State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Manish and others. 9. In the present case final investigation report filed under section 173 code of criminal procedure 1973 for trial of criminal offence under Section 498A and 34 IPC which is basically private and personal in nature and parties have resolved their entire dispute as per compromise deed Ext P2 placed on record. 10. It is held that in view of out of Court settlement compromise deed Ext P2 placed on record it would be unfair or contrary to interest of justice to continue with criminal proceeding. It is held that continuation of criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law. It is held that in order to ensure ends of justice it is appropriate that criminal case should put to an end. Point No.1 is answered in affirmative in favour of petitioners. Point No.2 (Final Order). 11. In view of my findings upon point No.1 petition is allowed and proceedings of criminal case No. 106/2 of 2013 titled State Vs. Rashpal Singh and others pending before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Nalagarh District Solan HP quashed. Record of learned trial Court along with certified copy of order be sent back forthwith for compliance. Petition is disposed of. All pending applications if any also disposed of.