Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1040 (HP)

Ajay Kumar v. State Of H. P.

2017-09-08

DHARAM CHAND CHAUDHARY

body2017
JUDGMENT Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. (Oral) - Accused-Petitioner Smt. Sapna Devi alias Swadesh Rani is not present due to she delivered a baby recently two months back. Accused-Petitioner No. 1 and 3 are, however, present in person. The complainant-respondent No. 2 Seema Kumari is present in person. As a matter of fact it is at her instance a case under Section 498-A read with Section 34 IPC has been registered in Police Station, Kangra district Kangra H.P. vide FIR Annexure P-4 against the Accused-Petitioners. Now the police has filed the challan in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra which has been registered as case No. 154-II of 2014, titled State vs. Ajay Kumar and others. The complainant-respondent No. 2 and Accused-Petitioners have now patched-up all differences amongst them and arrived at compromise during the course of proceedings in the pending criminal case in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra. The terms and conditions of the compromise Annexure P-5 are reflected in the order dated 25.6.2016 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. 2. As a matter of fact, learned trial Court has made an endeavour to settle the dispute through mediated settlement. Since the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC is not compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C., therefore, no effective order could have been passed by learned trial Court. This has led in filing the present Petition in the changed circumstances with a prayer to quash the FIR and impending criminal proceedings. 3. The Accused-Petitioners and complainant-respondent No. 2 are closely related with each other because while the Accused-Petitioners No. 1 and 2 are ''Dever'' and ''Devrani'' of the complainant, Accused-Petitioner No. 3 is her mother-in-law. The parties on both sides are happily residing in the company of each other in their house. The respondent-complainant submits that in view of the amicable settlement already arrived at she is no more interested to prosecute the pending criminal case against the Accused-Petitioners. She, therefore, has no objection in case the FIR and also the criminal proceedings are ordered to be quashed. Statement to this effect has been recorded separately. 4. On the other hand, the Accused-Petitioners No. 1 and 3 present in person have also undertaken to make the stay of respondent-complainant in the matrimonial home comfortable. Their joint statement to this effect has also been recorded separately. 5. Statement to this effect has been recorded separately. 4. On the other hand, the Accused-Petitioners No. 1 and 3 present in person have also undertaken to make the stay of respondent-complainant in the matrimonial home comfortable. Their joint statement to this effect has also been recorded separately. 5. True it is that certain differences having cropped-up between the parties in the recent past now stand settled amicably. The present Petition is in the form of a joint Petition as is apparent from the statement of the parties recorded separately. It is in this backdrop learned Counsel representing the Petitioners has urged that allowing the criminal proceedings to continue against Accused-Petitioners would be nothing but an abuse of process of law. The offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC is not compoundable. It is for this reason that the parties could not set in motion the machinery provided under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The complainant and the Accused-Petitioners, as such, have been invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court in the changed circumstances. 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 vs. State of Punjab and another, (2012) 10 SCC 303 . 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." 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. Such power, of course, has to be exercised sparingly and only 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. Such power, of course, has to be exercised sparingly and only 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. 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. 8. If applying the ratio of judgment supra, in the given facts and circumstances of this case, the complainant and Accused persons have now settled all disputes amicably. They are residing under the same roof with peace and in complete harmony. The respondent-complainant is no more interested to prosecute the Accused-Petitioners any further in the pending criminal case. Therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing the criminal proceedings to continue against the Accused-Petitioners. Being so, this Petition is allowed. Consequently, FIR No. 177 of 2014, Annexure P-14 and the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 154-II/2014, Annexure P-4 in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra, District Kangra, H.P. are ordered to be quashed and set aside. The Petition is accordingly disposed of. 9. An authenticated copy of this judgment be sent to learned Additional Judicial Magistrate, Kangra, District Kangra, H.P. for compliance.