Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2267 (HP)

Rishi Yadav v. State Of Himachal Pradesh

2018-12-19

TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN

body2018
JUDGMENT Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. - The parties are present in person and have been identified as such by their respective counsel(s). 2. The petitioner and respondent No.2, were married on 2.4.2002 in accordance with Hindu Rites and Customs. One male child Master Vijay Singh was born out of the wedlock on 6.7.2003. 3. Married life of the petitioner with respondent No.2 incidentally got disturbed due to some misunderstanding and both of them started residing separately since 26.4.2014. On account of such misunderstandings, respondent No.2 lodged a complaint against the petitioner which culminated in FIR No. 118/14 and case No.23-S/7 of 2016 pending trial before learned Additional Sessions Judge(1), Shimla. 4. Now, the petitioner and respondent No.2 have amicably settled all their past disputes and have filed a petition under Section 13 (B) of the Hindu Marriage Act for divorce by mutual consent before the learned District Judge, Panchkula, Haryana. The said petition is pending as Case No. 252 of 2018 and next date is fixed as 25.1.2019 for second motion. The said petition has been filed by the petitioner and respondent No.2 after having arrived at terms and conditions of settlement, which have been incorporated in the body of the said petition and a copy of the said settlement is annexed as Annexure P-1 with this petition. As per the said settlement, the petitioner has agreed to pay a sum of Rs.65.00 lakh to respondent No.2 in lieu of permanent alimony , maintenance, damages and compensation etc. out of which, a sum of Rs.32.50 lack have already been paid. In the said settlement, respondent No.2 has agreed to either take steps for withdrawal of prosecution of petition from the above mentioned case or to make statement before the Court of law so as to bring an end to said litigation. 5. The petitioner has complied with the terms and conditions of above settlement which he was required to perform till date and he is further ready and willing to perform remaining part of his obligation under the said settlement in future. 6. Now, the moot question is whether the FIR can be quashed when the complainant is not interested to pursue the same as they have compromised all the matters ? 7. 6. Now, the moot question is whether the FIR can be quashed when the complainant is not interested to pursue the same as they have compromised all the matters ? 7. This question is no longer res integra in view of the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Dimpey Gujral, W/o Vivek Gujral and others versus Union Territory through Administrator, UT, Chandigarh and others , (2013) 11 SCC 497 , where the Hon''ble Supreme Court in a case seeking quashment of FIR and its consequential proceedings involving Sections 147, 148, 149 and 323 IPC after relying upon the judgment of Gian Singh versus State of Punjab and another , (2012) 10 SCC 303 , held as follows:- "7. In certain decisions of this court in view of the settlement arrived at by the parties, this court quashed the FIRs though some of the offences were noncompoundable. A two Judges'' Bench of this court doubted the correctness of those decisions. Learned Judges felt that in those decisions, this court had permitted compounding of non-compoundable offences. The said issue was, therefore, referred to a larger bench. The larger Bench in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab , (2012) 10 SCC 303 considered the relevant provisions of the Code and the judgments of this court and concluded as under: (SCC pp.342-43, para 61) "61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim''s family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, the High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding." (emphasis supplied) 8. In the light of the above observations of this court in Gian Singh, we feel that this is a case where the continuation of criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law because the alleged offences are not heinous offences showing extreme depravity nor are they against the society. In the light of the above observations of this court in Gian Singh, we feel that this is a case where the continuation of criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law because the alleged offences are not heinous offences showing extreme depravity nor are they against the society. They are offences of a personal nature and burying them would bring about peace and amity between the two sides. In the circumstances of the case, FIR No.163 dated 26/10/2006 registered under Section 147, 148,149, 323, 307, 452 and 506 of the IPC at Police Station Sector 3,Chandigarh and all consequential proceedings arising there from including the final report presented under Section 173 of the Code and charges framed by the trial court are hereby quashed." 8. On the basis of the aforesaid exposition of law, this Court is of the opinion that this is a case where the continuation of the criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law because the alleged offences are not heinous offences showing extreme depravity nor are they strictly against the society. They are offences of personal nature and quashing the proceedings would bring about peace and amity between two sides. 9. In these circumstances, FIR No. 118 of 2014 dated 13.8.2014, registered at Police Station, Dhalli, District Shimla, under Sections 307 and 427 IPC and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, which was registered at the instance of respondent No.2 against the petitioner, are quashed including the proceedings in case No.23-S/7 of 2016 pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (1), Shimla are also quashed. 10. The petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms, so also the pending application(s), if any. Copy dasti.