Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1365 (HP)

Ashutosh Bhatt v. State Of Himachal Pradesh

2018-07-23

TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN

body2018
JUDGMENT Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. - The instant case is rather an unusual one. The petitioner and the complainant happen to be the husband and wife, who solemnized their marriage at ''Naina Devi Temple, Rewalsar, Tehsil Sadar/Balh, District Mandi, H.P.'' on 20th March, 2015. However, due to some misunderstanding, the wife got registered a case against her husband, who is the petitioner in this case, under the provisions of Sections 376, 504 and 506 IPC and Section 3 (i) (W) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 2. Since the parties are husband and wife, therefore, this Court vide order dated 19.07.2018 directed the complainant and the petitioner as also their parents to appear before this Court on 23.07.2018. 3. When the case was taken up today, both the husband and wife jointly moved an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing/withdrawal of the FIR No.0042 dated 09.07.2018, registered at Police Station, Bhuli, District Mandi, H.P. It has been averred that the complaint had been filed on account of certain misunderstanding and now the parties have settled the dispute amongst themselves. 4. I have interacted with the parties and their respective parents and I am convinced that it was only on account of certain misunderstanding that the aforesaid FIR came to be lodged against the petitioner at the instance of the complainant-wife. The parents of both the parties have acknowledged the marriage between the petitioner and the complainant-wife and this would further enable both the parties to lead a life with respect and dignity in the society. 5. The power to do complete justice is the very essence of every judicial justice dispensation system. It cannot be diluted by distorted perceptions and is not a slave to anything, except to the caution and circumspection, the standards of which the Court sets before it in exercise of such plenary and unfettered power inherently vested in it while donning the cloak of compassion to achieve the ends of justice. No embargo, be in the shape of Section 320(9) if the Cr.P.C. or any other such curtailment, can whittle down the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 6. The compromise, in a modern society, is the sine qua non of harmony and orderly behaviour. No embargo, be in the shape of Section 320(9) if the Cr.P.C. or any other such curtailment, can whittle down the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 6. The compromise, in a modern society, is the sine qua non of harmony and orderly behaviour. It is the soul of justice and if the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is used to enhance such a compromise which, in turn, enhances the social amity and reduces friction, then it truly is finest hour of justice. Disputes which have their genesis in a matrimonial discord, landlord-tenant matters, commercial transactions and other such matters can safely be dealt with by the Court by exercising its powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. in the event of a compromise, but this is not to say that the power is limited to such cases. There can never be any such rigid rule to prescribe the exercise of such power, especially in the absence of any premonitions to forecast and predict eventualities which the cause of justice may throw up during the course of a litigation. (Refer: Kulwinder Singh and others versus State of Punjab and another , (2007) 3 RCR(Cri) 1052). 7. In Mrs. Shakuntala Sawhney versus Mrs. Kaushalya Sawhney and others , (1980) 1 SCC 63 , the Hon''ble Supreme Court aptly summed up the essence of compromise in the following words:- " ..The finest hour of justice arrives propitiously when parties, despite falling apart, bury the hatchet and weave a sense of fellowship or reunion ." 8. In Madan Mohan Abbot versus State of Punjab , (2008) 4 SCC 582 , the Hon''ble Supreme Court emphasized and advised as under:- "6. We need to emphasise that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the court should ordinarily accept the term of the compromise even in criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilized in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law." 9. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law." 9. Even otherwise, it is more than settled that power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised ex debito justitiae to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. 10. The Hon''ble Supreme Court in Madan Mohan Abbot''s case while examining the case where quashing of an FIR was sought under Section 406 IPC being non-compoundable, held that:- "1. No useful purpose would be served in continuing with the proceedings in the light of the compromise. There was no possibility of conviction. 2. It is advisable that in the disputes where question involved is of purely personal nature and no public policy is involved, Court should ordinarily accept the compromise. 3. Keeping the matter alive with no possibility of conviction is a luxury which the Courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford." 11. Looking at the case from another angle, since the complainant is already married with the petitioner, as is otherwise duly proved on record, therefore, there is no possibility of her supporting the charge in case the petitioner is put to trial. Therefore, in such circumstances, the continuation of criminal proceedings would only cause untoward torture and harassment apart from creating undue social and psychological pressure over the parties whereby the complainant-wife would be called in the witness box to depose against the petitioner-husband and it is but obvious that she would not support the prosecution. Hence, there is not only remote or bleak but rather no possibility of the criminal proceedings culminating in the judgment of conviction. Even if, permitted to proceed with, the continuation of criminal proceedings may in fact result in marital disharmony which is not in the interest of the society as also the parties. In fact, in the given facts and circumstances of the case, the allegations in the FIR itself do not survive for consideration. 12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the application being Cr.M.P. No.993 of 2018 is allowed and accordingly FIR No.0042 dated 09.07.2018, registered at Police Station, Bhuli, District Mandi, H.P. under the provisions of Sections 376, 504 and 506 IPC and Section 3(i) (W) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, is quashed. 13. 12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the application being Cr.M.P. No.993 of 2018 is allowed and accordingly FIR No.0042 dated 09.07.2018, registered at Police Station, Bhuli, District Mandi, H.P. under the provisions of Sections 376, 504 and 506 IPC and Section 3(i) (W) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, is quashed. 13. In view of the compromise between the parties and disposal of the application, the petition being Cr.M.P.(M) No.880 of 2018 has become infructuous and is disposed of as such. 14. However, before parting, it would be noticed that marriage between the parties, though solemnized, has not been registered in accordance with the Himachal Pradesh Registration of Marriages Act, 1996. The District Registrar/Registrar of Marriages, Mandi, is directed to register the marriage before 10th August, 2018 by waiving of the period mentioned in Section 8 of the Himachal Pradesh Registration of Marriages Act, 1996. The Magistrate of the first class is directed to order registration of marriage on payment of the prescribed fee as provided for in sub-section 4 of Section 8 of the Act ibid. 15. For this purpose, the case be listed before this Court on 13th August, 2018.