Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1041 (HP)

Raman Singh v. State Of Himachal Pradesh

2018-05-31

DHARAM CHAND CHAUDHARY

body2018
JUDGMENT Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J —Learned Additional Advocate General has placed on record the status report and ASI Rajesh Kumar, I.O. Police Station, Dehra, District Kangra has produced the record. 2. The petitioner herein is an accused in FIR No. 16/18 initially registered against him in Police Station, Dehra, District Kangra under Sections 451, 323 and 504 IPC with the allegations that he not only pulled her hair but also torn clothes as well as slapped her. On the completion of the investigation and as per the opinion of doctor qua injury respondent No.2-complainant received on her person in this incident, instead of Section 323 IPC, the case was converted into under Section 324 IPC. The report under Section 173 Cr.P.C, as such, was filed under Sections 324, 451 and 504 IPC. The case presently is at the stage of consideration of charge in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehra, District Kangra, H.P. The offence punishable under Sections 451 and 504 IPC is compoundable under sub-section (1) of Section 320 Cr.P.C., however, offence punishable under Section 324 IPC is not compoundable, hence this petition for quashing the FIR. 3. The petitioner and complainant are closely related to each other. As a matter of fact, they being aunt and nephew are in close relations and the members of same family. In order to maintain harmony and peace in the family and to have cordial relations with each other, the complainant has patched up all differences with the accused-petitioner and their respective statements to this effect have been recorded separately. 4. As noticedthough an offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal code is not compoundable under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The apex Court, however, in Gian Singh versus State of Punjab and another , (2012) 10 SCC 303 has held that the High Court in exercise of inherent powers vested in it under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure may quash FIR/criminal proceedings in a case where the offence allegedly committed by the accused though is not compoundable, however, the victim and accused have settled the differences amicably. The powers vested in the Court, however, should be exercised sparingly and only in appropriate cases, having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such other transactions of like nature including matrimonial or the case relating to dowry etc., in which the wrong basically is done to the victim. This judgment further reveals that the compounding of offence in a case of serious nature like rape, dacoity and corruption etc., having serious impact in the society is not permissible. 5. The Apex Court in Narinder Singh and others versus State of Punjab and another , (2014) 6 SCC 466 has even quashed the FIR under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code with the following observations: "We have gone through the FIR as well which was recorded on the basis of statement of the complainant/victim. It gives an indication that the complainant was attacked allegedly by the accused persons because of some previous dispute between the parties, though nature of dispute etc. is not stated in detail. However, a very pertinent statement appears on record viz., ''respectable persons have been trying for a compromise up till now, which could not be finalized''. This becomes an important aspect. It appears that there have been some disputes which led to the aforesaid purported attack by the accused on the complainant. In this context when we find that the elders of the village, including Sarpanch, intervened in the matter and the parties have not only buried their hatchet but have decided to live peacefully in future, this becomes an important consideration. The evidence is yet to be led in the Court. It has not even started. In view of compromise between parties, there is a minimal chance of the witnesses coming forward in support of the prosecution case. Even though nature of injuries can still be established by producing the doctor as witness who conducted medical examination, it may become difficult to prove as to who caused these injuries. The chances of conviction, therefore, appear to be remote. It would, therefore, be unnecessary to drag these proceedings. We, taking all these factors into consideration cumulatively, are of the opinion that the compromise between the parties be accepted and the criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No.121 dated 14.7.2010 registered with Police Station LOPOKE, District Amritsar Rural be quashed. We order accordingly." 6. It would, therefore, be unnecessary to drag these proceedings. We, taking all these factors into consideration cumulatively, are of the opinion that the compromise between the parties be accepted and the criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No.121 dated 14.7.2010 registered with Police Station LOPOKE, District Amritsar Rural be quashed. We order accordingly." 6. Now, if coming to the case in hand, complainant-respondent No.2 is no more interested to prosecute the pending criminal case against the accused-petitioner any further. They both are present in person. Their statements to this effect have been recorded separately. The proceedings in the criminal case against the accused-petitioner are still at its initial stage as the matter is fixed for consideration on charge. In view of the complainant has settled the dispute with the accusedpetitioner amicably she is not going to support the prosecution case while in the witness box. Therefore, even if the trial is allowed to continue, the chances of conviction of the accused7 petitioner will be very bleak. Otherwise also, they are closely related to each other being the members of the same family. The quashing of FIR will not only unite the whole family but also facilitate each and every one in the family in complete peace and harmony. 7. Above all, the accused-petitioner has all repentance for the act he done. When in the changed circumstances the respondent-complainant is not likely to support the prosecution case, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing the criminal proceedings against the accused-petitioner to continue and to do so rather would amount to abuse of the process of law. 8. The petition as such is allowed. Consequently, FIR No. 16/18, registered against the accused-petitioner in Police Station, Dehra, District Kangra and also the consequential criminal proceedings pending disposal in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehra, District Kangra, is ordered to be quashed. The petition is accordingly disposed of. An authenticated copy of this judgment be sent to learned trial Court for record/compliance. In view of the peculiar circumstances recorded in the order passed on the previous date, copy dasti.