Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1189 (HP)

Ashok Kumar v. State Of H. P.

2019-08-20

VIVEK SINGH THAKUR

body2019
JUDGMENT : Vivek Singh Thakur, J. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has been filed, on the basis of compromise between the parties, for quashing of FIR No. 86 of 2015 dated 8.5.2015 lodged by complainant Ashok Kumar and consequential proceedings, arising therefrom i.e. Case No. 218/2 of 2015 pending before Additional Sessions Judge, Solan camp at Nalagarh against petitioners No. 2 to 5. 2. Petitioner No.1 is father of deceased Vandana, whereas petitioner No.2 is her husband and petitioners No.3, 4 and 5 are her father-in-law, mother-in-law and sisterin-law respectively. FIR in present case was lodged after death of Vandana by her father/petitioner No.1 and Ms. Surbhi Sharma is real sister of deceased Vandana who has been cited as a material witness of prosecution to establish commission of offence by petitioners No. 2 to 5. 3. Petitioner No. 1, complainant along with his daughter Surbhi Sharma as well as petitioner No.2 to 5 are present in person. Statements of petitioner No.1, petitioner No.2 and Ms. Surabhi Sharma have been recorded on oath today separately and placed on the file. 4. Petitioner No.1, complainant, has stated that he is complainant in the present case and FIR No. 86 of 2015 dated 8.5.2015 was lodged by him in P.S. Nalagarh after the unnatural death of his daughter on the basis of information and impression gathered by him from surroundings and at that time, he was not able to understand as to whether his daughter had committed suicide or had been killed by her in-laws. He has further stated that during investigation of case, it had come in the light that she had committed suicide. He has also stated that before her death on 7.5.2015 at about 2.30 am, deceased Vandana had also sent SMS to her sister Surbhi Sharma, on account of which they had doubted that some quarrel was going on in the family of in-laws of his deceased daughter Vandana, but now after going through the contents of SMS, he had found that she had not expressed any desire to commit suicide therein but had communicated general behaviour of her inlaws which was not liked by her and therefore, these SMS which were considered by them as a message about her desire to commit suicide on account of ill-treatment of her in-laws were wrongly interpreted by them whereas it was not so. 5. 5. It is also stated by complainant that children i.e. son and daughter of his deceased daughter Vandana, are also residing with their father and grandparents i.e. petitioners No. 2 to 4 and are studying in 3rd and 1st class respectively and are being looked after by them very well and in these circumstances, he is not able to understand the cause for which deceased Vandana had committed suicide and that FIR was lodged by him on account of suspicion which had arisen at that time on the basis of impression which now appears to be wrong impression. He has also deposed that he has decided not to pursue the criminal proceedings against in-laws of his deceased daughter Vandana, who are co-petitioners with him and therefore he has filed present petition jointly with accused persons for quashing of FIR and closing criminal proceedings and stated that he has made statement out of his free will, consent and also without any threat, coercion or pressure etc. 6. Ms. Surabhi Sharma daughter of complainant in her deposition has stated that she is younger sister of deceased Vandana, who had sent SMS to her about her family life, on the basis of which, she had considered that she had committed suicide on account of ill-behaviour of her in-laws and that after receiving SMS, but before commission of suicide, she had talked with her deceased sister on telephone, whereupon she had told her that she was in tension and therefore, she had sent those SMS to her, but deceased had also told that there was nothing to worry. She has further stated that she does not know the exact cause of commission of suicide by her deceased sister Vandana. She has endorsed the statement of her father to be true and correct and stated that she is in agreement with her father. She has also stated that she has deposed in Court today out of her free will, consent and without any threat, pressure or coercion of any kind. 7. She has endorsed the statement of her father to be true and correct and stated that she is in agreement with her father. She has also stated that she has deposed in Court today out of her free will, consent and without any threat, pressure or coercion of any kind. 7. Petitioner No.2/accused also, in his statement, by endorsing the deposition of complainant/petitioner No.1 and complainant's daughter Ms.Surabhi Sharma, has stated that his children are residing with him and he is taking their care to the best of his resources and ability and he had also tried to the best of his abilities to keep his wife happy, but unfortunately, she had committed suicide and he is able to understand the exact reason for commission of suicide by her. He has also stated that he undertakes to take care of his children in future also as it is his duty. He has further stated that he has deposed today in the Court, out of his free will, consent and also without any threat, coercion or pressure and prayed for allowing the present petition by quashing the FIR as well as consequential proceedings arisen in pursuance thereto. 8. 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. 9. Three Judges Bench of the Apex Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Ors., (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. 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. 10. The Apex Court in case Narinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and others, (2014) 6 SCC 466 and also in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan and others, 2019 5 SCC 688 has summed 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. 11. No doubt Section 306 of IPC is not compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C., however, as explained by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh's, Narinder Singh's and Laxmi Narayan's cases supra, power of High Court under Section 482 Cr.PC 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. 12. In present case, complainant/petitioner No.1 is father of deceased Vandana. Vandana was married to petitioner No.2 and out of wedlock couple was blessed with two children. After four years of marriage, Vandana has committed suicide. 12. In present case, complainant/petitioner No.1 is father of deceased Vandana. Vandana was married to petitioner No.2 and out of wedlock couple was blessed with two children. After four years of marriage, Vandana has committed suicide. One day before committing suicide, Vandana, through phone of her husband, had sent SMS to her sister related to habits of in-laws and certain norms of the said family which were felt by deceased wrong and unwarranted restrictions on her movement and day-to-day activities of her life. She had complained that mother-in-law usually remained in temples and for her, before going to temple, it is mandatory to take separate permission from not only father-in-law and mother-in-law but also telephonic permission from her husband which was being considered by her restriction rigour than jail and she was considering these restrictions as punishment for some sin. In one SMS she had conveyed that for her visit to parlour after a month, her husband used to say that she was visiting parlour very frequently. 13. In another message she had disclosed that even after taking liquor, her husband had not been sleeping properly, whereas kid had been annoying her during day time. She had also commented that since long time, there was no quarrel but she was feeling light after communicating these circumstances to her sister. In one message, she had conveyed that she had seen large number of deaths in dreams and her brother Ajay. Except SMS, statements of petitioner No.1 and Ms. Surabhi Sharma, there is no other tangible evidence on record to support the allegations levelled in FIR. There is nothing in SMS as to construe that accused had abetted deceased to commit suicide or were subjecting her to cruelty as defined under Section 498-A IPC. Statements of petitioner No.1 and Surabhi Sharma recorded on oath today are also not supporting the prosecution case. 14. In such a situation, prosecution case in the trial is going to face a situation of a case of no evidence. Children of deceased are also living with their father/petitioner No.2 who is residing with his parents petitioners No. 3 and 4. Petitioner No.1 is also satisfied from conduct of petitioners No. 2 to 5 after death of his daughter Vandana. Children of deceased are also living with their father/petitioner No.2 who is residing with his parents petitioners No. 3 and 4. Petitioner No.1 is also satisfied from conduct of petitioners No. 2 to 5 after death of his daughter Vandana. In these peculiar facts and circumstances, 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. 15. 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.86 of 2015 dated 8.5.2015 registered at Police Station, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. is quashed. Consequent to quashing of FIR, criminal proceedings i.e. Criminal Case No. 218/2 of 2015 pending before Additional Sessions Judge, Solan, Camp at Nalagarh are also quashed. 16. Petition stands disposed of in above terms, also pending application, if any.