Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 385 (HP)

Sandeep Malachi v. State of H. P.

2015-04-22

P.S.RANA

body2015
JUDGMENT : P.S. Rana, J. Order Present petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.196 of 2006 dated 4.4.2007 registered under Sections 498-A/34 IPC at P.S. (East) Shimla H.P. with further prayer for quashing the proceedings of criminal case No. 41-2 of 2007 titled State of H.P. vs. Sandeep and others pending disposal before learned CJM Shimla. It is pleaded that petitioner No. 1 and non-petitioner No. 2 solemnized their marriage on dated 15.4.2005 at Shimla in accordance with Christian rites. It is pleaded that out of wedlock no issue was born and both parties resided together as husband and wife at Chandigarh upto 21.4.2006 when non-petitioner No. 2 left the matrimonial house and both parties are residing separately from each other after 21.4.2006. It is pleaded that thereafter non-petitioner No. 2 filed complaint against petitioner No.1 and further pleaded that thereafter criminal case under Section 498-A read with Section 34 IPC was registered in P.S. (East) Shimla vide FIR No. 196/2006 on dated 4.4.2007. It is pleaded that thereafter challan was filed before learned CJM Shimla and case No. 41-2 of 2007 is pending for disposal. It is further pleaded that thereafter petitioner No.1 and non-petitioner No. 2 settled their differences amicably and both have filed divorce petition under Section 10-A of Indian Divorce Act 1869 as amended up to date for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent. It is pleaded that case is pending before learned District Judge UT Chandigarh which was registered as petition 3587/14. It is pleaded that thereafter said petition was transferred to learned ADJ UT Chandigarh who on dated 31.7.2014 recorded the joint statements of both the parties. It is pleaded that petitioner No. 1 had agreed to pay Rs. 6,75,000/- (Rupees six lacs seventy five thousand only) as permanent alimony to non-petitioner No.2. It is pleaded that petitioner No. 1 has paid a sum of Rs. 2 lac to non-petitioner No. 2 by way of demand draft No. 901519 dated 30.7.2014 payable at Punjab National Bank at Shimla on dated 31.7.2014. It is pleaded that remaining amount would be paid at the time when statements of parties shall be recorded. It is pleaded that both parties have settled their disputes amicably. Prayer for acceptance of petition sought. 2. It is pleaded that remaining amount would be paid at the time when statements of parties shall be recorded. It is pleaded that both parties have settled their disputes amicably. Prayer for acceptance of petition sought. 2. Per contra reply filed on behalf of the State of H.P. pleaded therein that FIR No. 196 of 2006 dated 4.4.2007 was registered. It is pleaded that challan also filed before learned CJM Shimla. It is pleaded that parties be directed to prove the averments mentioned in the petition. It is pleaded that Court may pass any order which deems fit. 3. Statement of non-petitioner No. 2 Smt. Meenakashi was recorded on dated 29.10.2014. Smt. Meenakashi has stated that she has no objection if petition filed by petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed. Statement of petitioner Sandeep also recorded. Sandeep has also stated that compromise has been executed inter se the parties and matrimonial disputes have been amicably settled and petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. be allowed. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners Nos. 2 to 5 had also given similar statements placed on record. 4. Court heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of non-petitioner No.1 and learned counsel appearing on behalf of non-petitioner No.2 at length and also perused the entire record carefully. 5. Following points arise for determination in this petition:- 1. Whether petition filed under Section 482Cr.P.C. is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of petition? 2. Final Order. Findings upon Point No.1 6. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioners that dispute interse the parties is matrimonial dispute and same stood amicably settled and petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. be allowed is accepted for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. In present case non-petitioner No.2 Meenakashi has specifically stated that she has no objection if petition filed by petitioners is allowed. Court is satisfied that matrimonial dispute stood amicably settled inter se the parties. It is well settled law that under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Court has inherent powers to quash the criminal proceedings even in those criminal cases which are not compoundable. Court is satisfied that matrimonial dispute stood amicably settled inter se the parties. It is well settled law that under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Court has inherent powers to quash the criminal proceedings even in those criminal cases which are not compoundable. It is also well settled law that power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be exercised sparingly and with cautiously and it is also well settled law that only those criminal offences are allowed to be compounded which are not against the society. It is well settled law that criminal offence of personal nature should be allowed to be settled interse the parties. It is well settled law that proceedings of criminal cases which are (1) Murder (2) Rape (3) Dacoity (4) Prevention of Corruption Act (5) Criminal offence under Section 307 IPC should not be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It is well settled law that dispute which arises out of commercial transaction, matrimonial dispute and family dispute should be allowed to be compounded by the Court in the ends of justice. (See Latest HLJ 2014 H.P. 1248 titled Ravinder Singh @ Laddi and others vs. State of H.P. and another, See JT 2014(4) SC 573 titled Narinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another, See: JT 2003(3) SC 277 titled B.S. Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana and another, See JT 2012(9) SC 426 titled Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another) In view of above stated facts it is held that it would be expedient in the ends of justice to allow the petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Point No.1 is answered in affirmative. Point No. 2(Final order) 7. In view of my findings upon point No. 1 petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed and FIR No. 196 of 1996 dated 4.4.2007 registered under Sections 498-A read with Section 34 IPC at P.S(East) Shimla H.P. and consequential criminal proceedings of case No. 41-2 of 2007 titled State of H.P. vs. Sandeep and others pending before learned CJM Shimla are ordered to be quashed with immediate effect in the ends of justice. Statements of parties recorded before Hon’ble High Court of H.P. shall form part and parcel of order. Petition stands disposed of accordingly. All pending miscellaneous application(s) if any also stands disposed of.