Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1986 (HP)

Manmohan Singh v. State Of H P

2018-11-15

VIVEK SINGH THAKUR

body2018
JUDGMENT Vivek Singh Thakur, J. - This petition has been filed by petitionersaccused for quashing FIR No. 501 of 2017 registered under Sections 354, 506, 504, 323 of the Indian Penal Code, at Police Station, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P., and criminal proceedings initiated in pursuance thereto, on the basis of compromise, arrived at between petitionersaccused and victim-respondent No. 2. 2. Petitioners/Accused and respondent No. 2-victim are present in Court who are duly identified by their respective counsel. Their statements on oath have also been recorded. 3. In the present case, petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 are husband and wife and petitioner No.2 is the father-in-law of respondent No.2. The dispute, as alleged by the parties present in Court, arose between the family members on the trivial matter, leading to registration of FIR No. 501 of 2017 in Police Station Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur. 4. Victim (Respondent No.2), in her deposition has endorsed the compromise and has prayed for quashing the FIR and proceedings initiated against petitioners/accused. In her statement she has stated that the matter has been amicably settled between them as the petitioners/accused have repented for their act and have undertaken not to repeat such act in future and at present, she is also residing with her husband in common house along with their two children and therefore, for the sake of peace and for welfare of children and family, she has decided to withdraw her complaint and now she does not want to continue the criminal proceedings against the petitioners/accused. She has further stated that she has made her statement and has also compromised the matter out of her free will and consent and also without any threat, coercion or pressure etc. 5. The petitioners/accused also, in their statements, by endorsing the deposition of respondent No.2/complainant, have stated that they have repentance for unfortunate incident and thus they apologized for the said incident and have undertaken to behave with respondent No. 2 in good manners and not to assault her in future and they had also repented before the Panchayat for the incident. They have further stated that their deposition in Court is with their free consent and will and also without any threat, coercion or pressure etc. and they have prayed for disposal of present petition in terms of compromise. 6. They have further stated that their deposition in Court is with their free consent and will and also without any threat, coercion or pressure etc. and they have prayed for disposal of present petition in terms of compromise. 6. It is contended on behalf of respondent-State that accused are not entitled to invoke inherent jurisdiction of this Court to exercise its power on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties with respect to an offence not compoundable under Section 320 Cr.PC. 7. Three Judges Bench of the Apex Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Ors. reported in , (2012) 10 SCC 303 , explaining that High Court has inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with no statutory limitation including Section 320 Cr.PC, has held that these powers are to be exercised to secure the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process of any Court and these powers can be exercised to quash criminal proceedings or complaint or FIR in appropriate cases where offender and victim have settled their dispute and for that purpose no definite category of offence can be prescribed. However, it is also observed that Courts must have due regard to nature and gravity of the crime and criminal proceedings in heinous and serious offences or offence like murder, rape and dacoity etc. should not be quashed despite victim or victim family have settled the dispute with offender. Jurisdiction vested in High Court under Section 482 Cr.PC is held to be exercisable for quashing criminal proceedings in cases having overwhelming and predominatingly civil flavour particularly offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil partnership, or such like transactions, or even offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry etc., family disputes or other such disputes where wrong is basically private or personal nature where parties mutually resolve their dispute amicably. It was also held that no category or cases for this purpose could be prescribed and each case has to be dealt with on its own merit but it is also clarified that this power does not extend to crimes against society. 8. The Apex Court, in case Narinder Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab and Ors. It was also held that no category or cases for this purpose could be prescribed and each case has to be dealt with on its own merit but it is also clarified that this power does not extend to crimes against society. 8. The Apex Court, in case Narinder Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab and Ors. , (2014) 6 SCC 466 , has sum up and laid down principles, by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercise its power 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 criminal proceedings. 9. No doubt Section 354 of IPC is not compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C. However, as explained by Hon''ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh''s and Narinder Singh''s cases supra, power of High Court under Section 482 CrPC is not inhibited by the provisions of Section 320 CrPC and FIR as well as criminal proceedings can be quashed by exercising inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC, if warranted in given facts and circumstances of the case for ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court, even in those cases which are not compoundable where parties have settled the matter between themselves. 10. In present case, there is a family disputed and for the betterment of family as well as society and in the interest of children and for continuation of harmony and peaceful relations between the couple and other family members, I find that it is a fit case to exercise power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and further even otherwise if criminal proceedings are allowed to continue, no fruitful purpose is going to be served as paramount consideration is to save the family. 11. Further, offence in question does not fall in the category of offences prohibited for compounding in terms of the pronouncements of the Apex Court by exercising power under Section 482 of the CrPC. 12. 11. Further, offence in question does not fall in the category of offences prohibited for compounding in terms of the pronouncements of the Apex Court by exercising power under Section 482 of the CrPC. 12. Keeping in view nature and gravity of offence and considering facts and circumstances of the case in entirety, I am of the opinion that present petition deserves to be allowed for ends of justice and the same is allowed accordingly and FIR No.501 of 2017, dated 6.12.2017, registered under Sections 354, 506, 504, 323 IPC at Police Station, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P. is quashed. Consequent to quashing of FIR, criminal proceedings against accused in pursuance to case FIR No. 501 of 2017 pending before learned trial Court are also quashed. 13. Petition stands disposed of in above terms.