Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1734 (HP)

Parma Nand v. State of H. P.

2016-08-20

P.S.RANA

body2016
ORDER : P.S. Rana, J. Present petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash FIR No. 210 of 2012 dated 8.7.2012 and criminal proceedings pending before learned Judicial Magistrate Indora District Kangra (H.P.). Brief facts of the case 2. It is alleged that Smt. Reena Devi filed criminal complaint against accused persons. There is recital in criminal complaint that marriage of complainant was solemnized according to Hindu rites and customs about one year ago. There is recital in complaint that accused are father-in-law, mother-in-law, sister-in-law and brother-in-law. There is recital in police report that accused persons are harassing the complainant and are beating the complainant and are demanding dowry from complainant. There is recital in criminal complaint that husband of complainant is working at Srinagar. There is also recital in police report that on 26.6.2012 at about 4 PM accused persons beaten the complainant and thrown out the complainant from matrimonial house. There is recital in police report that accused person also demanded dowry from Smt. Reena Devi. FIR No. 210 of 2012 dated 8.7.2012 registered under Section 498-A IPC in P.S. Indora District Kangra H.P. After investigation charge sheet filed against accused persons in competent Court of law under Sections 498-A read with Section 34 IPC. There is recital in petition that out of Court settlement executed inter se parties. 3. Per contra response filed on behalf of non-petitioners pleaded therein that after completion of investigation final charge sheet filed against accused persons before learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Indora for trial in accordance with law. Prayer for dismissal of petition sought. 4. Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioners and learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of State and non-petitioner No.2 who appeared in person and also perused the record carefully. 5. Following points arise for determination in present petition:- Point No.1 Whether petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of petition as alleged? Point No.2 Final order. Findings upon Point No. 1 with reasons 6. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioners/accused persons that out of Court settlement executed inter se parties and petition filed by petitioners under Section 482 Cr.P.C. be allowed is accepted for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Complainant Reena Devi personally appeared before Court and stated that out of Court settlement executed inter se parties. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioners/accused persons that out of Court settlement executed inter se parties and petition filed by petitioners under Section 482 Cr.P.C. be allowed is accepted for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Complainant Reena Devi personally appeared before Court and stated that out of Court settlement executed inter se parties. Complainant has stated that she has no objection if petition filed by petitioners is allowed. Statements of accused persons also recorded and placed on record. It is well settled law that following criminal offences should be allowed to be compromised by way of out of Court settlement. (1) Commercial transaction dispute. (2) Matrimonial dispute. (3) Family dispute. It is also well settled law that following criminal offences should not be compromised on the basis of out of Court settlement. (1) Murder. (2) Rape. (3) Dacoity. (4) Prevention of Corruption Act. (5) Offence under Section 307 IPC. (6) Offence against Society. See JT(2014)4 SC 573 title Narinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and others. Present case is a family dispute matter. Complainant Reena Devi has specifically seted in positive manner that she has no objection if petition filed by petitioners is allowed. In view of above stated facts it is expedient in the ends of justice to allow the petition. Point No.1 is answered in affirmative. Point No.2(Final Order) 7. In view of findings upon point No.1 petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C, is allowed and permission to compound the present case filed under Section 498-A read with Section 34 IPC is allowed in the ends of justice and proceedings before learned Trial Court relating to criminal case No. 59-II/2013 title State of H.P. vs. Parmanand and others are quashed. Statements of complainant and accused recorded will form part and parcel of order. Record of learned Trial Court along with certified copy of order be sent back forthwith. Cr.MMO No. 64 of 2016 is disposed of. Pending miscellaneous applications if any also stands disposed of.