Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 321 (HP)

Mohit Khattar v. State of H. P.

2015-04-09

P.S.RANA

body2015
ORDER P.S. Rana, Judge (Oral) Present petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 22 of 2011 dated 9.3.2011 registered under Section 498-A read with Section 34 IPC in Police Station East Shimla H.P. with further prayer to quash the pending proceedings in Criminal Case No. 94-2 of 2011 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate Court No. 1 Shimla H.P. It is pleaded that present FIR was registered as per criminal complaint filed by wife of petitioner No.1 dated 9.3.2011 registered in Police Station East Shimla H.P. It is further pleaded that both the parties have mutually agreed to withdraw all the cases pending and also agreed to file joint divorce petition under Section 13 (B) of Hindu Marriage Act. It is further pleaded that no prejudice will be caused to any party if the petition is allowed and prayer for acceptance of petition sought. 2. Per contra no reply filed on behalf of State of Himachal Pradesh. Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners and non-petitioners and Court also perused entire record carefully. 3. Following points arise for determination in this petition:- Point No. 1 Whether petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is liable to be accepted as mentioned in the memorandum of ground of petition? Point No. 2 Final Order. Findings on Point No.1 4. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners that dispute inter-se the parties is relating to matrimonial dispute and parties have mutually entered into compromise and in view of the above stated facts petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. be allowed is accepted for reasons hereinafter mentioned. Parties personally appeared before the Court and statement of parties were recorded. Smt. Shipra Khattar complainant has specifically stated before the Court that she has no objection if FIR No. 22 of 2011 dated 9.3.2011 registered under Section 498-A read with Section 34 IPC in Police Station East Shimla and consequential criminal proceedings are quashed. Smt. Shipra also stated in positive manner that she had given statement voluntarily without any coercion and undue influence. Statement of accused persons also recorded by the Court and placed on record. All the accused persons had corroborated the version of complainant Smt. Shipra Khattar. It is well settled law that under Section 482 Cr.P.C. court has inherent power to quash criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable. Statement of accused persons also recorded by the Court and placed on record. All the accused persons had corroborated the version of complainant Smt. Shipra Khattar. It is well settled law that under Section 482 Cr.P.C. court has inherent power to quash criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable. It is also well settled law that power should be exercised sparingly and with caution. It is also well settled law that only those criminal offences should be quashed which are not against society. It is also well settled law that criminal offences which are personal in nature should be quashed in order to maintain peace and amity between the parties. See Latest HLJ 2014 page 1248 titled Ravinder Singh @ Laddi & others vs. State of H.P. It is also well settled law that criminal proceedings relating to offences of murder, rape, dacoity, Prevention of Corruption Act should not be dropped and it is also well settled law that criminal cases relating to commercial transaction, matrimonial dispute and family dispute could be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. See 2014 (4) SC 573 Judgment Today titled Narender Singh & others vs. State of Punjab and another. It was held in case reported in 2008 (8) SCC 781 titled Monika Kumar & another vs. State of U.P. & others that inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution. It was held in case reported in AIR 2003 SC 1386 titled B.S. Joshi vs. State of Haryana that in matrimonial offences it becomes the duty of the Court to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes. 5. In view of the fact that in the present case complainant Smt. Shipra Devi had given statement that she has no objection if the FIR and consequential criminal proceedings are quashed and in view of the fact that mutual divorce petition has been filed before the competent Court of law it is held that it is expedient in the ends of justice to allow the petition. Point No.1 is answered in affirmative. Point No.2. Final Order 6. In view of findings upon point No.1 above petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed and FIR No. 22 of 2011 dated 9.3.2011 and consequential criminal proceedings of case No. 94-2 of 2011 pending before learned Judicial Magistrate Court No.1 Shimla H.P. are ordered to be quashed. Point No.1 is answered in affirmative. Point No.2. Final Order 6. In view of findings upon point No.1 above petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed and FIR No. 22 of 2011 dated 9.3.2011 and consequential criminal proceedings of case No. 94-2 of 2011 pending before learned Judicial Magistrate Court No.1 Shimla H.P. are ordered to be quashed. Petition is dispose of. Pending applications if any also disposed of.