Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1240 (HP)

Babita Devi v. State Of H P

2018-07-06

DHARAM CHAND CHAUDHARY

body2018
JUDGMENT Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. - Petitioners herein are the accused persons in FIR No. 183/15, Annexure A-1 registered under Sections 420, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against them at the instance of respondent No.2-complainant in Police Station, Kangra, District Kangra, H.P. The allegations against them, in a nut-shell, are that after the marriage of accusedpetitioner No.1 with respondent-complainant, when the later asked for proof of date of birth of petitioner No.1, they supplied him forged and fictitious record. On inquiry, it transpired that she was elder in age as compared to respondent-complainant. He, therefore, lodged FIR against the petitioners. 2. It is due to such differences cropped-up between the parties, the marriage of respondentcomplainant with petitioner No.1 stands dissolved by a decree of divorce with mutual consent. Respondentcomplainant Ashwani Kumar is present in person. According to him, the parties have now patched up all the differences and settled the controversy amicably. The deed of compromise is Annexure A-3 to this petition. He, as such, is no more interested to prosecute the criminal case registered at his instance vide FIR, Annexure A-1 against the accusedpetitioners. 3. Joint statement of accused-petitioners have also been recorded separately. They have also explained the circumstances under which differences cropped-up between them. The facts, therefore, remain that respondent No.2-complainant is no more interested to prosecute the accused-petitioners any further in the criminal case registered against them at his instance. 4. The status report placed on record by learned Deputy Advocate General reveals that the investigating agency on completion of the investigation has filed the challan under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused persons in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Kangra, District, Kangra, H.P. Learned counsel representing the accused-petitioners, on instructions, submits that though charge has been framed against them in the pending criminal case, however, no evidence is yet recorded. 5. It is seen that an offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal code is not compoundable under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 5. It is seen that an offence punishable under Section 420 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. 6. The Punjab and Haryana High Court in Karamvir Singh versus State of Punjab and another, Crl. Misc. No. M-1586 of 2013 (O&M) decided on 13.9.2013 after placing reliance on Full Bench judgment of the same High Court in Kulwinder Singh and others versus State of Punjab , (2007) 3 RCR(Cri) 1052 and also that of Apex Court in Gian Singh''s casehas allowed the compounding of offence in a case punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code in the similar circumstances with the observation that since the parties have arrived at a compromise and decided to live in peace, no useful purpose would be served in allowing the proceedings to continue. 7. 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. 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." 8. Now coming to the case in hand, the complainant-respondent No.2 is no more interested to prosecute the pending criminal case against the accused-petitioners any further. The accusedpetitioners and respondent No.2 are present in person. Their statements have been recorded separately. The proceedings in the criminal case pending against the accused-petitioners are presently at its initial stage because the prosecution evidence is not yet commenced. In view of the complainant and the accused persons have settled the differences between them amicably; it is imperative that the complainant 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 accusedpetitioners will be bleak. In view of the complainant and the accused persons have settled the differences between them amicably; it is imperative that the complainant 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 accusedpetitioners will be bleak. The injury, if any, caused on account of furnishing forged and fictitious documents by the accused qua the date of birth of petitioner No.1 is personal to respondent No.2-complainant. As noticed hereinabove, he is not likely to support the prosecution case, therefore, there is no likelihood of the success of the prosecution case and conviction of the accused-petitioners. In such a situation, allowing the pending criminal proceedings against the accusedpetitioners to continue any further would nothing but would amount to abuse of the process of law. 9. The petition as such is allowed. Consequently, FIR No. 183/15 Annexure A-1 and also the proceedings arising out of the same against the accused-petitioners pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Kangra, District Kangra, H.P. will also stand quashed. The petition is accordingly disposed of. An authenticated copy of this judgment be sent to learned trial Court for record/compliance.