Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 11 (HP)

Vinay Kumar Thakur v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2021-01-02

VIVEK SINGH THAKUR

body2021
JUDGMENT : VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, J. 1. This petition has been preferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 79 of 2020, dated 23.5.2020, registered under Sections 498-A, 323 and 34 Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter in short ‘IPC’) at Police Station Bhawarna, District Kangra H.P. and quashing of proceedings initiated in pursuant thereto vide Case No. 112 of 2020 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No. 2, Palampur, District Kangra. 2. Petitioner No. 4 Deepshikha is complainant, who is wife of petitioner No. 1 Vinay Kumar and daughter-in-law of petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 namely Bihari Lal and Sunita Devi. Petitioner No. 1 Vinay Kumar and petitioner No. 4 Deepshikha were present on 14.12.2020 on which date their statements on oath have been recorded. 3. Petitioners herein are members of one family. Quashing of FIR in present petition has been prayed on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties, photocopy whereof has been placed on record as Annexure P-3, which is duly signed by petitioner No. 4 Deepshikha and petitioners No. 1 to 3 namely Vinay Kumar, Bihari Lal and Sunita Devi. Both of them i.e. petitioner No. 1 as well as complainant have endorsed the compromise. 4. Petition is duly supported by affidavits of all four petitioners i.e. complainant as well as accused persons. In her statement, Deepshikha has narrated the entire circumstances for which FIR in question was lodged and in which compromise has been arrived at between the parties. She has endorsed that compromise is out of her free will, consent and also without any kind of threat, coercion or pressure etc. and further that all of them are living under one roof along with children of complainant and petitioner No. 1. Her statement has been endorsed to be true and correct by petitioner No. 1. 5. Reply, stated to have been filed on behalf of respondent/State, is not on record. and further that all of them are living under one roof along with children of complainant and petitioner No. 1. Her statement has been endorsed to be true and correct by petitioner No. 1. 5. Reply, stated to have been filed on behalf of respondent/State, is not on record. However, it is apparent from copy thereof that quashing of FIR has been opposed on the ground that FIR in question was registered on the basis of complaint of petitioner No. 4 and matter has been investigated and after investigation, it has been found that petitioners No. 1 to 3 have committed the offence under Sections 498-A, 323 and 34 IPC and challan has been presented in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No. 2, Palampur and same has been listed for consideration on 18th February, 2021 and it is submitted that it is non-compoundable offence and thus, petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. Three Judges Bench of the Apex Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab, (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.P.C. 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.P.C. is held to be exercisable for quashing criminal proceedings in cases having overwhelming and pre-dominatingly 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. 7. The Apex Court in Parbatbhai Aahir alias Parbathbhai Bhimsinghbhai Karmur vs. State of Gujarat, (2017) 9 SCC 641 summarizing the broad principles regarding inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has recognized that these powers are not inhibited by provisions of Section 320 Cr.P.C. 8. The Apex Court in case Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 and State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan, (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. 9. No doubt Section 498-A of IPC is not compoundable only with the permission of Court. However, as explained by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh's Narinder Singh's Parbatbhai Aahir's and Laxmi Narayan's cases supra, power of High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not inhibited by the provisions of Section 320 Cr.P.C. and FIR as well as criminal proceedings can be quashed by exercising inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 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 Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab, (2008) 4 SCC 582 the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasized and advised that in the matter of compromise in criminal proceedings, keeping in view of nature of this case, to save the time of the Court for utilizing to decide more effective and meaningful litigation, a commonsense approach, based on ground realities and bereft of the technicalities of law, should be applied. 11. 11. Keeping in view the fact that complainant, who appeared in person and endorsed the compromise arrived at with petitioners/accused and now family is living happily under one roof, I find that it is a fit case to exercise power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and further even otherwise, in view of statement of the complainant, if criminal proceedings are allowed to continue, no fruitful purpose is going to be served. Further, offences in question as alleged do 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 Cr.P.C. 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. 79 of 2020, dated 23.05.2020, registered against the petitioners/accused under Sections 498-A, 323 and 34 IPC at P.S. Bhawarna, District Kangra H.P. is quashed. Consequent to quashing of said FIR, criminal proceedings vide Case No. 112 of 2020, titled State vs. Vinay pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No. 2, Palampur, District Kangra are also quashed. 13. Petition stands disposed of in above terms, so also pending application, if any.