Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1635 (HP)

Sonika Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2019-10-31

JYOTSNA REWAL DUA

body2019
JUDGMENT : Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J. 1. By means of present petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, a prayer has been made for quashing FIR No. 88/18, dated 03.06.2018, under Sections 354, 354-A, 323, 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station, Dehra, District Kangra and also for quashing consequential proceedings in Criminal Case No. 197/2018, titled State of H.P. vs. Gopal Singh and Another, pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehra, District Kangra, H.P. 2. The respondent-State has filed the status report, which has been perused. Facts: 3. The facts as emerge from the record are that:- (i) Petitioner No. 1 is legally wedded wife of petitioner No. 2. Petitioner No. 3 is father of petitioner No. 2. On 03.06.2018, petitioner No. 1/wife submitted a complaint to SHO Police Station, Dehra, District Kangra, levelling various allegations, inter alia, in respect of beatings allegedly given to her by her in-laws; regarding her sexual harassment by petitioner No. 3/father-in-law, telephonic threats by her husband for doing away her life. (ii) On the basis of aforesaid complaint, FIR No. 88/18, dated 03.06.2018, was registered, initially, under Sections 354, 323, 506 IPC at Police Station, Dehra, District Kangra, H.P. As per status report, later on Sections 354-A and 34 IPC were also added. (iii) In respect of above FIR, Criminal Case No. 197/18, titled State of H.P. ves. Gopal Singh and Another, is pending adjudication before the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehra, District Kangra and presently stated to be at the stage of recording evidence of prosecution witnesses. (iv) All the three petitioners are present in the Court today in person and have been identified as such by learned counsel Mr. B.L. Soni, representing them: (a) As per compromise deed dated 23.09.2019 placed on record of the case, the parties have settled all their disputes amicably and are maintaining good relationship amongst themselves. It has been stated by petitioner No. 1/complainant/wife, that the complaint filed by her was result of domestic misunderstanding. Same was resolved by all the family members immediately after the filing of the complaint before the police and now she has no grievance whatsoever against petitioner Nos. 2 and 3. It has been stated by petitioner No. 1/complainant/wife, that the complaint filed by her was result of domestic misunderstanding. Same was resolved by all the family members immediately after the filing of the complaint before the police and now she has no grievance whatsoever against petitioner Nos. 2 and 3. (b) It is jointly stated by all the petitioners that the said compromise has been arrived at amongst them out of their free will without any influence or pressure whatsoever. It is further stated by them that they are having cordial relations now amongst themselves and are not interested to pursue the FIR/criminal case proceedings any further. 4. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that criminal case is presently at the stage of recording evidence of prosecution witnesses. He has fairly submitted that he has no objection in case the relief prayed for in the instant petition is granted in view of the compromise effected between the parties. 5. In fact, present is a joint petition preferred by the complainant-wife as well as the accused-husband and father-in-law of complainant. It is jointly stated by all the petitioners that even though the complaint was filed on 03.06.2018 by petitioner No. 1/wife, on the basis of which, FIR No. 88/18 in question was registered the same day, yet immediately thereafter the parties had compromised the matter and started living together. Petitioners No. 1 and 2 are also parents of a son aged about three and half years. Parties have effected a written compromise amongst themselves on 23.09.2019. The original compromise deed dated 23.09.2019 has been placed alongwith the record of the present petition. 6. The law laid down in respect of exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing or for refusing to quash the FIR and resultant proceedings on the basis of compromise effected by the parties laid down in titled Shiji vs. Radhika, (2011) 10 SCC 705 , Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303 , Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 , Parbatbhai Aahir vs. State of Gujarat, (2017) 9 SCC 641 has been noticed again by Hon'ble Apex Court in titled as State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan, (2019) 5 SCC 688 with following observations:- "15. Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of this Court on the point, referred to hereinabove, it is observed and held as under: 15.1. That the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves. 15.2. Such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved 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. 15.3. Similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes like 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. 15.4. Offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act etc. would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal proceedings for the offence under Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act etc. which have a serious impact on the society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code, on the ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst themselves. 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 framing 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. 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. However, such an exercise by the High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and the charge sheet is filed/charge is framed and/or during the trial. Such exercise is not permissible when the matter is still under investigation. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in paragraphs 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in the case of Narinder Singh (supra) should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove. 15.5. While exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non-compoundable offences, which are private in nature and do not have a serious impart on society, on the ground that there is a settlement/compromise between the victim and the offender, the High Court is required to consider the antecedents of the accused; the conduct of the accused, namely, whether the accused was absconding and why he was absconding, how he had managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise etc." 7. Applying the above guidelines to the facts of instant case - present is not the case where offences alleged to have been committed by petitioner nos. 2 and 3 can be said to be offences against the State or involving social impact. The offences originate from a matrimonial dispute. The parties have compromised the matter and are not interested in pursuing the FIR/criminal proceedings any further. Since the parties have settled down and resolved their matrimonial disputes, which led to registration of FIR and resultant criminal proceedings, therefore, in such circumstances possibility of conviction of petitioner nos. 2 and 3 would be very-very remote. Even otherwise, once matrimonial/family disputes between the parties have been resolved and all the parties are living peacefully, then no fruitful purpose would be served in continuing the proceedings in question. 8. Consequently, the present petition is allowed. 9. 2 and 3 would be very-very remote. Even otherwise, once matrimonial/family disputes between the parties have been resolved and all the parties are living peacefully, then no fruitful purpose would be served in continuing the proceedings in question. 8. Consequently, the present petition is allowed. 9. FIR No. 88/18, dated 03.06.2018, under Section 354, 354-A, 323, 506 read with Section 34 IPC, registered at Police Station, Dehra, District Kangra, alongwith consequent criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No. 197/2018, titled State of H.P. vs. Gopal Singh and another, pending before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehra, District Kangra, are quashed. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.