Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1138 (HP)

Amit Mahindru v. State of H. P.

2018-06-21

SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2018
JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. 1. This petition stands instituted at the instance of the petitioners-accused under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 197 of 2014, registered at Police Station, Baddi, District Solan, H.P. wherein the petitioners herein are alleged, to commit offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 406, 506, 34 and 120-B, of, the Indian Penal Code. 2. During the pendency of the petition before this Court, respondent No. 2 recorded her statement on oath, statement whereof stands duly reduced into writing and signatured by her, wherein she has “made” disclosures quam them apt settlement occurring qua the relevant dispute, with, the petitioner No. 1/accused herein. She has also proceeded to unveil therein qua hers holding no objection, in case, the instant petition preferred by the petitioners, before this Court, for quashing of FIR No. 197 of 2014, registered at Police Station, Baddi, District Solan, H.P., is accepted. Given the statement of respondent No. 2, this Court hence accepts the instant petition. Even though some of the offences constituted in the FIR are non-compoundable, however, in the light of the verdict of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in Narinder Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab and Another, (2014) 6 SCC 466 , relevant paragraph 11 whereof stands extracted hereinafter, whereupon this Court hold leverage, to quash an FIR besides consequential proceedings launched in pursuance thereof, (a) even when, some of the offences recorded therein are non compoundable, (b) especially for preventing abuse of process of Court or for securing the ends of justice, (c ) besides when in the face of a settlement arrived at inter se the accused, and, respondent No. 2/complainant qua the relevant offences, hence render bleak the chances of the accused suffering conviction. Paragraph No. 11 of the aforesaid judgment reads as under: “11. Paragraph No. 11 of the aforesaid judgment reads as under: “11. As to under what circumstances the criminal proceedings in a non compoundable case be quashed when there is a settlement between the parties, the Court provided the following guidelines: (Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303 ):- “58 Where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that the dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled although the 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 peace is resorted; 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 wrongdoing that seriously endangers and threats the will being of the 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 the permission of the Court. In respect of serious offences like murder, rape, decoity etc. or other offences of mental depravity under IPC or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by the public servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between the offender and the 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 of the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc., or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to the victim and the offender and the 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 FIR if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of the 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.” 3. Consequently, with a settlement standing arrived at inter-se the parties herein, thereupon this Court is constrained to hence conclude that even if some of the offences constituted, in the FIR are non compoundable, (a) yet, for securing the ends of justice besides for precluding the petitioners/accused, from, their being subjected to the ordeal of unnecessary harassment, (b) and, humiliation of facing trial, (c) significantly when respondent No. 2 in her statement recorded on oath, duly reduced into writing and signatured by her, renders communications therein qua hers not intending to prosecute the petitioners/accused, whereupon the settlement arrived at inter se the parties, warrants imputation of reverence thereto. Moreover, what further prods this Court to revere the settlement arrived at inter se the parties, is comprised in the fact “of with the” victims of the offences being uninterested in prosecuting the petitioner/accused, resultantly when obviously the chances of the petitioners/accused suffering conviction are rendered bleak/remote, (d) factum whereof qua the remoteness and bleakness of the petitioners/accused suffering conviction, stands expostulated in the relevant paragraph 11 of the verdict of the Hon’ble Apex Court, hence to be a relevant and guiding parameter, for accepting the settlement arrived at inter se the parties, (e) even when some of the offences are non-compoundable, as may be in this case. Resultantly, when the aforesaid parameter expostulated in relevant paragraph 11, of, the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, para whereof stands extracted hereinabove, has, for the reasons aforesaid hence begotten satiation, satiation thereof hence prods this Court to accept the settlement arrived at inter se the parties. 4. Consequently, the petition is allowed and FIR No. 197 of 2014, registered at Police Station, Baddi, District Solan, H.P. wherein the petitioners/accused herein are alleged to commit offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 406, 506, 34 and 120-B, of, the Indian Penal Code, is quashed, and, set aside. Also, further proceedings pending before the learned JMIC (II), Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P are also quashed. All the pending applications, if any, are also disposed of. 5. Also, further proceedings pending before the learned JMIC (II), Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P are also quashed. All the pending applications, if any, are also disposed of. 5. Stated that the Hindu Marriage Petition, preferred jointly by me and my husband, petitioner herein, before the learned District Judge, Union Territory Chandigarh HMA Petition No. 3460 of 2014, has been decreed and decree of dissolution of marital ties with respondent has been dissolved. Also, my previous husband, petitioner herein has defrayed a sum of Rs. 26,00,000/-. Consequently, I pray before this Court that the instant petition be accepted and FIR No. 197 of 2014, registered at Police Station, Baddi, District Solan, H.P. and consequential proceedings pending before the JMIC (II), Nalagarh, Solan, District Solan, H.P. be quashed and set aside.