Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2509 (HP)

Gurmeet Kaur @ Romi v. State of H. P.

2016-11-29

DHARAM CHAND CHAUDHARY

body2016
JUDGMENT : Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. Petitioner herein is the complainant as FIR No.38/13 Annexure P-1 has been registered at her instance against Manish Gupta, respondent No.3 and his mother Hemvati Gupta, respondent No.4, in Police Station, Nalagarh, District Solan. 2. The complainant was married to respondent No.3 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies on 12.6.2006 at village Dattowal, in Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan. They lived as husband and wife and also cohabited as such for sometime, however, later on their relations became strained, which has led in registration of a case vide FIR Annexure P-1 by the petitioner against her husband respondent No.3 and his mother respondent No.4. 3. The investigation in the case is complete and the challan filed by the police against accused-respondents No.3 and 4 has been registered as criminal case No.102/2 of 2013 and is pending disposal in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalagarh, District Solan. The parties have, however, now settled all disputes between them amicably as is apparent from the perusal of the deed of compromise Annexure P-2. 4. Both parties have admitted the deed of compromise Annexure P-2 to be true and correct and also admitted their signatures on the same. Not only this, but the marriage of the petitioner with respondent No.3 also stands resolved by a decree of divorce. The statements of the parties on both sides have been recorded separately. Though in the FIR the complainant has named three more persons as accused, however, out of them Chuni Lal, the father of respondent No.3 has expired whereas against remaining two accused the challan has not been filed by the Police. Being so, it is respondents No.3 and 4 who are now stated to be facing trial in the court below. Petitioner, who is complainant in FIR annexure P-1, has no objection in case the same as well as consequential criminal proceedings initiated against both respondents are quashed and set aside. 5. The offence under Sections 406 and 506 IPC allegedly committed by the respondents-accused is compoundable with and without the permission of the court. However, the offence punishable under Section 498-A is not compoundable even with the permission of the Court. Therefore, it is for this reason the petitioner and respondents-accused have mutually agreed to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR and also the pending criminal proceedings. However, the offence punishable under Section 498-A is not compoundable even with the permission of the Court. Therefore, it is for this reason the petitioner and respondents-accused have mutually agreed to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR and also the pending criminal proceedings. 6. As per legal position settled at this stage even in a case where compounding of an offence is not permissible the parties, viz the victim of an occurrence and the accused, if compromised the disputes between them in an amicable settlement may approach the High Court for quashing the FIR. The support in this regard can be drawn from the judgment of the apex Court in Gian Singh versus State of Punjab and another, (2012) 10 SCC 30. The relevant text of this judgment reads as follows:- “58. Where High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that dispute between the offender and victim has been settled although offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. No doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful effect on the public and consist in wrong doing that seriously endangers and threatens well-being of society and it is not safe to leave the crime- doer only because he and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the victim has been paid compensation, yet certain crimes have been made compoundable in law, with or without permission of the Court. In respect of serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc; or other offences of mental depravity under IPC or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between offender and victim can have no legal sanction at all. However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to victim and the offender and victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or F.I.R if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated. The above list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Each case will depend on its own facts and no hard and fast category can be prescribed.” 7. In view of the law laid down by the apex Court in the judgment supra, the High Court in exercise of the inherent powers vested in it under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure may quash the FIR in a case where the offence allegedly committed by the accused though is not compoundable; however, the victim and accused have settled the disputes amicably and the victim is no more interested to prosecute the accused and the complaint she made against the accused. Such powers, of course, have to be exercised sparingly and in appropriate cases having arisen out of civil mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or any other transactions of like nature including matrimonial or the cases relating to dowry etc., in which the wrong basically is done to the victim. 8. Since the wrong in this case, if any, is done to the complainant, who is petitioner in this petition and as she is no more interested to prosecute the complaint, she lodged against the respondents-accused, no useful purpose is likely to be served to allow the proceedings in the criminal case to continue against them for the reason that the prosecution in the subsequent development ultimately is likely to be terminated in acquittal of the accused. Being so, this petition is allowed. Being so, this petition is allowed. Consequently, FIR No.38/13, registered against the accused-respondent under Sections 498-A, 406 and 506 IPC in Police Station, Nalagarh, District Solan and the consequential criminal proceedings i.e. in criminal case No. 102/2 of 2013, pending disposal in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalagarh, District Solan shall stand quashed and set aside. 9. In view of what has been said hereinabove, the petition is disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. An authenticated copy of this judgment be sent to learned trial Court for being taken on record and compliance.