Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 18 (HP)

Baldeep Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2015-01-05

SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2015
Judgment Sureshwar Thakur, J. Petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.4 are husband and wife respectively. Petitioners No.2 and 3 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of petitioner No.4. After the marriage inter se petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.4 and during the course of her stay at her matrimonial home, marital strife arose inter se them which generated the institution of FIR No.167 of 2013 of 29.10.2013 under Sections 498A, 406, 506 read with Section 34, IPC with Police Station, Amb at the instance of petitioner No.4 against petitioners No.1 to 3. On registration of an FIR by petitioner No.4 against petitioners No.1 to 3, investigation commenced into the offences alleged against the accused therein and whose culmination sequelled the institution of a report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the Criminal Court of competent jurisdiction. The petitioners, who comprise the accused as well as the complainant, have jointly instituted the instant petition before this Court manifesting their desire therein that they have put at rest all their disputes and the petitioner No.4 has joined the matrimonial company of petitioner No.1. Copy of the compromise deed arrived at inter se the petitioner, has been placed on record as Annexure P-2. The factual matrix aforesaid does communicate the fact that the turbulences/commotions which erupted in the matrimonial life of petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.4 now stand amicably compromised as well as resolved. It ought to be the endeavour of the Court to ensure that the matrimonial life of the 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 as well as her in-laws 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. 2. The husband and wife as well as her in-laws 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. 2. Even though, the settlement or compromise as has been arrived at inter se the accused and the complainant, has sequelled the institution of the instant joint petition on their behalf for according the relief of quashing of the FIR lodged 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 distinct from other crimes which are committed against society, inasmuch, as, when the marriage inter se the parties is both sacrosanct and sacramental, as such, an endeavour ought to be made to preserve it rather, than to unsettle it. 3. Annexure P-2, the compromise deed arrived at inter se the petitioners portrays the factum of the petitioners having volitionally settled their disputes or shows their willingness to promote inter se amity and cordiality as also to preserve the marriage inter se petitioner No.1 (accused) and petitioner No.4 (complainant). Petitioner No.4, who is the signatory to Annexure P-2 has portrayed her willingness to withdraw the proceedings pending against petitioners No.1 to 3 in the criminal Courts of competent jurisdiction arising out of the matrimonial strife. Petitioner No.4, who is the signatory to Annexure P-2 has portrayed her willingness to withdraw the proceedings pending against petitioners No.1 to 3 in the criminal Courts of competent jurisdiction arising out of the matrimonial strife. Therefore, for maintaining peace, inter se the parties who constitute one family and who have jointly moved this Court for quashing of the FIR, this Court to maintain equilibrium in the family, especially when all have chosen or shown their desire to live in unison, peace and harmony, consequently, 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. Consequently, with the litigating parties having amicably settled the bickerings/dispute inter se themselves and theirs having projected a desire to live in harmony and peace, the petition is allowed and the FIR bearing No.167 of 2013 of 29.10.2013 under Sections 498A, 406, 506 read with Section 34, IPC with Police Station, Amb as also sequeling criminal proceedings thereof comprised in Criminal Case No. 144-1 of 2013, titled as State of H.P. vs. Baldeep Singh and others pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amb, District Una, H.P., against the petitioners No.1 to 3 are quashed. All the pending applications also stand disposed of.