Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 476 (HP)

Neeraj v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2019-04-26

TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN

body2019
JUDGMENT : TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN, J. 1. By medium of this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short Code), the petitioner has sought quashing of FIR No. 57/2015, registered at Police Station, New Shimla, District Shimla, on 15.07.2015, under Sections 498-A, 323 read with Section 34 IPC along with all consequential proceedings in Criminal Case No. 900682/ 2016, titled State vs. Neeraj and Others, pending before learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No. 5, Shimla, District Shimla. 2. Today, petitioner and respondent No. 2 are present in person before this Court and identified as such by their respective counsels. Learned counsel for the parties state that the parties have amicably settled the matter as per Annexure P-2, placed on the file. Respondent No. 2 further states that now she does not want to pursue the aforesaid case against the petitioner. 3. Prayer is accepted in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties and in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jitendra Raghuvanshi and Others vs. Babita Raghuvanshi and Another, (2013) 4 SCC 58 , wherein it was held as under:- "7. The scope and ambit of power under Section 482 of the Code has been examined by this Court in a catena of earlier decisions. In the present case, we are concerned about interference by the High Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 in relation to matrimonial disputes. 8. It is not in dispute that matrimonial disputes have been on considerable increase in recent times resulting in filing of complaints under Sections 498A and 406 of IPC not only against the husband but also against the relatives of the husband. The question is when such matters are resolved either by the wife agreeing to rejoin the matrimonial home or by mutual settlement of other pending disputes for which both the sides approached the High Court and jointly prayed for quashing of the criminal proceedings or the FIR or complaint by the wife under Sections 498A and 406 of IPC, whether the prayer can be declined on the sole ground that since the offences are non-compoundable under Section 320 of the Code, it would be impermissible for the Court to quash the criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint. 9. 9. It is not in dispute that in the case on hand subsequent to the filing of the criminal complaint under Sections 498A and 406 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, with the help and intervention of family members, friends and well-wishers, the parties concerned have amicably settled their differences and executed a compromise/settlement. Pursuant thereto, the appellants filed the said compromise before the trial Court with a request to place the same on record and to drop the criminal proceedings against the appellants herein. It is also not in dispute that in addition to the mutual settlement arrived at by the parties, respondent-wife has also filed an affidavit stating that she did not wish to pursue the criminal proceedings against the appellants and fully supported the contents of the settlement deed. It is the grievance of the appellants that not only the trial Court rejected such prayer of the parties but also the High Court failed to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code only on the ground that the criminal proceedings relate to the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 406 of IPC which are non-compoundable in nature. 10. Learned counsel for the parties, by drawing our attention to the decision of this Court in B.S. Joshi and Others vs. State of Haryana and Another, (2003) 4 SCC 675 , submitted that in an identical circumstance, this Court held that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 can quash criminal proceedings in matrimonial disputes where the dispute is entirely private and the parties are willing to settle their disputes amicably. 11. It is not in dispute that the facts in B.S. Joshi (supra) are identical and the nature of the offence and the question of law involved are almost similar to the one in hand. 12. 11. It is not in dispute that the facts in B.S. Joshi (supra) are identical and the nature of the offence and the question of law involved are almost similar to the one in hand. 12. After considering the law laid down in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 and explaining the decisions rendered in Madhu Limaye vs. State of Maharashtra, (1977) 4 SCC 551 , Surendra Nath Mohanty and Another vs. State of Orissa, (1999) 5 SCC 238 and Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Others vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and Others, (1998) 5 SCC 749 , this Court held: "8......We are, therefore, of the view that if for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necessary, Section 320 would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing. It is, however, a different matter depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case whether to exercise or not such a power." Considering matrimonial matters, this Court also held: "12......The special features in such matrimonial matters are evident. It becomes the duty of the court to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes." 13. As stated earlier, it is not in dispute that after filing of a complaint in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 406 of IPC, the parties, in the instant case, arrived at a mutual settlement and the complainant also has sworn an affidavit supporting the stand of the appellants. That was the position before the trial Court as well as before the High Court in a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code. A perusal of the impugned order of the High Court shows that because the mutual settlement arrived at between the parties relate to non-compoundable offence, the court proceeded on a wrong premise that it cannot be compounded and dismissed the petition filed under Section 482. A perusal of the petition before the High Court shows that the application filed by the appellants was not for compounding of non-compoundable offences but for the purpose of quashing the criminal proceedings. 14. The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are wide and unfettered. A perusal of the petition before the High Court shows that the application filed by the appellants was not for compounding of non-compoundable offences but for the purpose of quashing the criminal proceedings. 14. The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are wide and unfettered. In B.S. Joshi (supra), this Court has upheld the powers of the High Court under Section 482 to quash criminal proceedings where dispute is of a private nature and a compromise is entered into between the parties who are willing to settle their differences amicably. We are satisfied that the said decision is directly applicable to the case on hand and the High Court ought to have quashed the criminal proceedings by accepting the settlement arrived at. 15. In our view, it is the duty of the courts to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes, particularly, when the same are on considerable increase. Even if the offences are non-compoundable, if they relate to matrimonial disputes and the court is satisfied that the parties have settled the same amicably and without any pressure, we hold that for the purpose of securing ends of justice, Section 320 of the Code would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing of FIR, complaint or the subsequent criminal proceedings." 4. Keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is not disputed that the parties have reached a settlement and on that basis the petitioner has preferred the present proceedings seeking quashment of the FIR. Once respondent No. 2 does not want to hold the petitioner responsible, the quashing of such FIR would definitely be to secure the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of process of the Court. 5. Thus, taking holistic view of the matter and looking into all attending facts and circumstances, I find this to be a fit case to exercise powers under Section 482 of the Code and accordingly FIR No. 57/2015, registered at Police Station, New Shimla, District Shimla, on 15.07.2015, under Sections 498-A, 323 read with Section 34 IPC along with all consequential proceedings in Criminal Case No. 900682/2016, titled State versus Neeraj and others, pending before learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No. 5,Shimla, District Shimla, are quashed. 6. The petition stands allowed in the aforesaid terms. 7. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.