Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 909 (HP)

Gursewak Singh v. State of HP

2016-05-24

DHARAM CHAND CHAUDHARY

body2016
JUDGMENT : Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. Respondent No.2-complainant Paramjeet Kaur is present in person. As a matter of fact, she is complainant and the case under Sections 406, 498-A and 506 of the Indian Penal Code has been registered against the petitioners in Police Station, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, vide FIR No.162 of 2011 on 22.5.2011 at her instance. The record reveals that after registration of the FIR she entered upon a compromise Annexure P-3 with the accused-petitioners. Not only this, but consequent upon the deed of settlement Annexure P-3 the marriage of petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2-complainant stands dissolved by a decree of divorce with mutual consent. The decree to this effect passed by the Principal Judge Family Court at Dehradun is Annexure P-4. The respondent-complainant has now solemnized the marriage with Salinder Kumar alias Surender Kumar son of Shri Molar Ram of village Fatehgarh, Tehsil Rador, District Yamuna Nagar, Haryana. Marriage certificate is Annexure P-5. The respondent-complainant is present in person. According to her, in view of the subsequent developments having taken place she is no more interested to prosecute the criminal case pending disposal in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Paonta Sahib against the accused-petitioners. She, therefore, has no objection in case the pending criminal proceedings are ordered to be quashed. Her statement to this effect has been recorded separately. 2. On behalf of the accused-petitioners Gursewak Singh and Raghubir Singh are present in person and their joint statement has also been recorded separately. 3. Accused-petitioner Gursewak Singh and respondent-complainant Paramjeet Kaur, no doubt, had solemnized marriage on 5.12.2005, as per Sikh rites and rituals and lived together as husband and wife. However, accused-petitioner Gursewak Singh allegedly started maltreating respondent No.2-wife and as a result thereof she lodged the FIR against him. The investigation is complete and challan has also been filed in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Paonta Sahib. The same has been registered as Case No.500/1 of 2011. Charge against the accused-petitioners stands framed and the case is at the stage of recording prosecution evidence. However, accused-petitioner Gursewak Singh and respondent No.2 Paramjeet Kaur have settled dispute amicably and even on a joint application they filed, their marriage stands dissolved by a decree of divorce. She has solemnized marriage with Salinder Kumar alias Surender Kumar and living with her husband in the matrimonial home. However, accused-petitioner Gursewak Singh and respondent No.2 Paramjeet Kaur have settled dispute amicably and even on a joint application they filed, their marriage stands dissolved by a decree of divorce. She has solemnized marriage with Salinder Kumar alias Surender Kumar and living with her husband in the matrimonial home. It is in this backdrop learned Counsel representing the parties on both sides submit that allowing the criminal proceedings to continue against the accused-petitioners is nothing but is the abuse of process of law. 4. The offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code is not compoundable. It is for this reason the parties could not resort to the machinery provided under Section 320 or 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The accused-petitioners in the changed circumstances have thus invoked the inherent jurisdiction vested in this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 5. As per legal position settled at this stage even in a case where the compounding of an offence is not possible 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 v. 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. 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.” 6. It is thus held in the judgment supra that the High Court in exercise of inherent powers vested in it under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure may quash FIR in a case where the offence allegedly committed by an accused though is not compoundable; however, the victim and accused have settled the dispute amicably. The powers, however, can be exercised sparingly and only in appropriate cases, such as having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such 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. The compounding of offence, however, is not permissible in the cases of serious nature like rape, dacoity and corruption cases having serious impact in the society as a whole. 7. If applying the ratio of the judgment supra in the given facts and circumstances of this case the respondent-complainant is now settled with her husband on solemnization of second marriage. She has received consolidated amount of Rs.1 lac towards her past, present and future maintenance. 7. If applying the ratio of the judgment supra in the given facts and circumstances of this case the respondent-complainant is now settled with her husband on solemnization of second marriage. She has received consolidated amount of Rs.1 lac towards her past, present and future maintenance. The dowry articles have also been returned to her. In view of her statement recorded separately she is no more interested to prosecute the pending criminal case against the accused-petitioners, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing the criminal proceedings to continue against the accused-petitioners and rather to do so would amount the abuse of process of law because ultimately no findings of conviction is possible in view of the subsequent developments as discussed hereinabove having taken place after registration of the FIR. I, therefore, allow this petition and quash the criminal proceedings launched against the accused-petitioners in Criminal Case No.500/1 of 2011, titled State versus Gursewak Singh and others pending disposal in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. An authenticated of this judgment be sent to learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Paonta Sahib for compliance.