Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1616 (HP)

Urmila Devi v. Renu Verma

2018-09-07

SANJAY KAROL

body2018
JUDGMENT Sanjay Karol, A.C.J. - Parties are present in Court. 2. Both the petitions (being CRMMO No.275 of 2018 & CRMMO No.321 of 2018) under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short Code ) have been preferred by the petitioners for quashing of complaint Number Domestic Violence Act/9005210/2017, titled as Smt.Renu Verma vs. Sandeep Kumar & others, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Shimla, H.P., and for quashing of FIR No.7, dated 19.04.2017, registered at Women Police Station, Shimla, H.P., under the provisions of Sections 342, 506 & 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending before the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Shimla, H.P. 3. Smt. Renu Verma (respondent herein) filed a complaint against the petitioners, which led to registration of the aforesaid complaint and FIR. Allegedly, petitioners had been subjecting her to cruelty and maltreatment for bringing insufficient dowry and also threatened her with dire consequences. 4. In both these petitions, learned Mediator, has submitted his report dated 07.09.2018. Evidently, the parties, who are present in Court, have amicably resolved their dispute, which is of matrimonial in nature. Ms.Renu Verma, daughter of Sh.Anil Kumar Verma, was married to Sandeep Kumar Kaundal, son of Sh.Prithi Chand (petitioner herein). In CRMMO No.321 of 2018, titled as Sandeep Kumar Kaundal & others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & another, parties to the lis, namely, Sh.Sandeep Kumar Kaundal (petitioner No.1), mother Smt.Urmila Devi (petitioner No.2), father Sh.Prithi Chand Kaundal (petitioner No.3), Ms.Renu Verma (respondent No.2), as also in CRMMO No.285 of 2018, titled as Urmila Devi & others vs. Renu Verma, Smt.Nirmala Devi (petitioner No.3) and Sh.H.R. Chandel (petitioner No.4) are present. Statements of the parties stand recorded and taken on record. 5. These petitions stood filed on the premise that the matter stands compromised between the present petitioners and the private respondent vide compromise deed (Ex.C-1). All terms of compromise (Ex.C-1) and settlement stand incorporated in the proceedings of learned Mediator. 6. That these are not the cases wherein the offences for which the petitioners have been charged can be stricto sensu held to be the offences against the State. All terms of compromise (Ex.C-1) and settlement stand incorporated in the proceedings of learned Mediator. 6. That these are not the cases wherein the offences for which the petitioners have been charged can be stricto sensu held to be the offences against the State. Even otherwise, when matter stands compromised, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and the continuation of the criminal case against the petitioners would put them to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to them by not quashing the criminal case. 7. In Narinder Singh and Others. v. State of Punjab & Another. , (2014) 4 JT 573 (SC) the Hon ble Supreme Court after summing up the legal position has laid down the following guidelines for the High Court in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its powers under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings, which reads thus:- (I) Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution. (II) When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure: (i) ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives. (III)Such a power is not be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives. (III)Such a power is not be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, for offences alleged to have been committed under special statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by Public Servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender. (IV)On the other, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves. (V)While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases. (VI)Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore is to be generally treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to proving the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc. Medical report in respect of injuries suffered by the victim can generally be the guiding factor. On the basis of this prima facie analysis, the High Court can examine as to whether there is a strong possibility of conviction or the chances of conviction are remote and bleak. Medical report in respect of injuries suffered by the victim can generally be the guiding factor. On the basis of this prima facie analysis, the High Court can examine as to whether there is a strong possibility of conviction or the chances of conviction are remote and bleak. In the former case it can refuse to accept the settlement and quash the criminal proceedings whereas in the later case it would be permissible for the High Court to accept the plea compounding the offence based on complete settlement between the parties. At this stage, the Court can also be swayed by the fact that the settlement between the parties is going to result in harmony between them which may improve their future relationship. (VII) While deciding whether to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code or not, timings of settlement play a crucial role. Those cases where the settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged commission of offence and the matter is still under investigation, the High Court may be liberal in accepting the settlement to quash the criminal proceedings/investigation. It is because of the reason that at this stage the investigation is still on and even the charge sheet has not been filed. Likewise, those cases where the charge is framed but the evidence is yet to start or the evidence is still at infancy stage, the High Court can show benevolence in exercising its powers favourably, but after prima facie assessment of the circumstances/material mentioned above. On the other hand, where the prosecution evidence is almost complete or after the conclusion of the evidence the matter is at the stage of argument, normally the High Court should refrain from exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code, as in such cases the trial court would be in a position to decide the case finally on merits and to come a conclusion as to whether the offence under Section 307 IPC is committed or not. Similarly, in those cases where the conviction is already recorded by the trial court and the matter is at the appellate stage before the High Court, mere compromise between the parties would not be a ground to accept the same resulting in acquittal of the offender who has already been convicted by the trial court. Similarly, in those cases where the conviction is already recorded by the trial court and the matter is at the appellate stage before the High Court, mere compromise between the parties would not be a ground to accept the same resulting in acquittal of the offender who has already been convicted by the trial court. Here charge is proved under Section 307 IPC and conviction is already recorded of a heinous crime and, therefore, there is no question of sparing a convict found guilty of such a crime. 8. Keeping in view the aforesaid guidelines, it is not disputed that the parties have reached a settlement and on that basis have preferred the present proceedings seeking quashment of the FIR. Once Ms.Renu Verma (respondent), who is the worst affected person does not want to hold the petitioners responsible, the quashing of such FIR would definitely be to secure the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of process of the Court. 9. The facts of these cases otherwise do not in any manner fall within the exceptions laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court where compromise cannot be entered into or the proceedings cannot be quashed. 10. Thus, taking holistic view of the matter and looking into all attending facts and circumstances, I find these cases to be fit cases to exercise powers under Section 482 of the Code and accordingly the FIR No.7, dated 19.04.2017, registered at Women Police Station, Shimla, H.P., under the provisions of Sections 342, 506 & 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, is ordered to be quashed. Since FIR has been quashed, the proceedings arising out of the said FIR pending before the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Shimla, H.P., are thereby rendered infructuous. However, the same are expressly quashed so as to obviate any confusion. Also complaint Number Domestic Violence Act/9005210/2017, titled as Smt.Renu Verma vs. Sandeep Kumar & others, pending before Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Shimla, H.P., are ordered to be quashed. 11. Efforts put in by Ms.Archna Dutt, learned Mediator, are highly appreciable. With the aforesaid observations, present petitions stand allowed and disposed of accordingly, so also pending application(s), if any.