Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 9 (JK)

Rahul Vaid v. State of J&K

2021-02-03

JAVED IQBAL WANI

body2021
JUDGMENT : Through Video Conferencing 1. Initially the petitioners herein filed the instant petition under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashment of an FIR No. 21/2018 dated 24.12.2018 registered at Police Station Women Cell, Jammu, at the instance of respondent No. 4 against petitioners for commission of offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 and 109 RPC stating therein that petitioner No. 1 married respondent No. 4 on 11.03.2016 being a dowry less marriage and that soon after the marriage respondent No. 4 started harassing and humiliating the petitioner No. 1, pressurizing him to live separately from his old aged mother viz. petitioner No. 2 and that the respondent No. 4 succeeded in getting the petitioner No. 1 separated from petitioner No. 2 to live with respondent No. 4 away from his ancestral house at Pacca Danga, Jammu and despite that respondent No. 4 continued to humiliate and harass the petitioner No. 1 and ultimately respondent No. 4 sought divorce which the petitioner No. 1 refused resulting into institution of a petition under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act by the respondent No. 4 against the petitioners 1 to 3 before the Court of Sub Judge, Jammu. 2. It has been stated in the petition that petitioner No.3 came to be roped in the said proceedings by the respondent No. 4 even though she remained out of Jammu in USA for her studies and upon return there from has been living in Mumbai and not being a part of the joint family of the petitioners since many years and that the respondent No.4 in the FIR in question implicated the petitioner No. 3 with the intention to cause humiliation and defamation to her being the unmarried sister of the petitioner No. 1. 3. It has been further stated that the petitioner No. 4 being relative of the petitioner No. 1 (Bua) has also been implicated in the FIR in question despite the fact that she is an old aged lady putting up at Haryana and had no role in the matrimonial life of the petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 4 and that the petitioner No. 4 as well came to be roped in by the respondent No. 4 in the FIR in question with the intention to humiliate and harass the petitioners. The FIR in question is stated to be based on concocted story aimed at to compel the petitioner No. 1 to give divorce to the respondent No.4. 4. Petitioners in the petition thus sought quashment of the FIR in question on multiple grounds enumerated therein the petition, while placing reliance on the judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as “R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1960 SC 866 ” and “State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal reported in 1992 suppl. (1) SCC 335”. 5. During the pendency of the instant petition, the respondent No. 4 through her counsel on 01.09.2020 submitted that petitioner No.1 and respondent No. 4 have entered into a compromise and resolved their disputes. 6. On 06.10.2020 this Court passed an order while considering application being CrLM No. 864/2020 filed by the petitioners for placing on record the judgement and decree dated 06.07.2020 passed by the Additional District Judge (Matrimonial cases Jammu). In the application supra it had been prayed that the FIR in question be quashed on account of the compromise having been arrived at between the petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 4. Mr. Aseem Sawhney learned AAG appearing counsel for respondents 1 to 3 expressed no objection to the settlement of the petition in the light of averments made in the application, thus having regard to the compromise arrived at between the parties and the averments made in the application inasmuch, as respective submissions of the appearing counsels, in terms of order dated 06.10.2020 supra parties were directed to appear before the Registrar Judicial of this Court on 12.10.2020 for recording of their statements in support of the compromise before finally settling the petition. 7. In terms of order dated 18.11.2020, this Court directed the parties to file respective affidavits in support of the compromise arrived at between them instead of getting their statements recorded before the Registrar Judicial as directed in terms of order dated 06.10.2020 supra, in that, the learned appearing counsel for the parties expressed their inability in view of closure of the Courts on account of COVID-19 for getting their statements recorded before the Registrar Judicial. 8. 8. In compliance to order dated 18.11.2020 the petitioners as also respondent No. 4 have filed independent applications for placing on record their respective affidavits supra, acknowledging, endorsing and authenticating compromise supra and consequently seeking quashment of the FIR in question. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. According to the learned appearing counsels, the dispute amongst the parties has been matrimonial/private and civil in nature unfortunately resulting into registration of FIR in question and that good sense prevailed upon the parties and the dispute came to be amicably settled, therefore make a joint prayer for quashment of the FIR in question. 11. Before proceeding to deal with the matter in the light of aforesaid facts and circumstances, it would be relevant and appropriate to extract and reproduce the affidavit sworn by respondent No. 4 filed before this Court in support of compromise here under: - I, Ambisha Sachdeva D/o Ashok Sachdeva Age 33 R/o H. no. 51, Pacca Danga, Jammu, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under: - 1. That the non-applicants/petitioners have filed petition bearing CRMC No. 54/2019, seeking quashment of FIR No. 21/2018 dated 24.12.2018 registered at police Station, Women cell, Jammu by deponent, before this Hon'ble Court. 2. That during the pendency of aforesaid petition, before this Hon'ble court, a compromise came to be arrived between the deponent and petitioner no.1, whereby both decided to dissolve their marriage by mutual consent. 3. That in pursuance of the compromise, a petition for grant of divorce by mutual consent was filed by deponent and petitioner no. 1, before the court of Ld. Additional District Judge (Matrimonial Cases), Jammu and the Ld. Court below passed judgement and decree dated 06.07.2020, thereby dissolving the marriage between the deponent and petitioner no. 1, by their mutual consent. 4. That now as the parties have already arrived on compromise and conditions of compromise are also fulfilled. The deponent does not want to press the above mentioned FIR no.21/2018 dated 24.12.2018 registered at Police Station, Women Cell, Jammu by deponent, against the petitioners and prays before this Hon'ble Court to kindly quash the above mentioned FIR, pending against the petitioners in view of the compromise arrived. 5. That the deponent has no objection if the aforesaid FIR is quashed. 12. 5. That the deponent has no objection if the aforesaid FIR is quashed. 12. The power of High Court in quashing the criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction has been dealt with and detailed out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases titled as “Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another” reported in 2012 (10) SCC 303 and “Parbatbhai Aahir Alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Others Vs. State of Gujarat and Another” reported in 2017 (9) SCC 641 . 13. In Gian Singh's supra case at para 61, it has been noticed as under:- 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. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victims family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and the 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. 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 basical 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 the 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. 14. In “Parbatbhai Aahir's supra case at Para 16, it has been noticed as under: - 16. The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject, may be summarised in the following propositions: 16.1 Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court; 16.2. The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a First Information Report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable. 16.3. In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power. 16.4. While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court. 16.5. The decision as to whether a complaint or First Information Report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated. 16.6. In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences. 16.7. As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing in so far as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned. 16.8. Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute. 16.9. In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and 16.10. 16.9. In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and 16.10. There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions 16.8. and 16.9. above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the state have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance. 15. Keeping in mind the aforesaid propositions and principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in “Gian Singh's and Parbatbhai Aahir's” cases supra and having regard to the issues involved in the petition, it is manifest that the FIR in question registered at the instance of respondent No. 4 against the petitioners is one relating to a dispute predominately having a civil flavour arising out of matrimonial dispute being basically private and personal in nature and having been amicably and mutually resolved. 16. Thus in view of the said amicable settlement between the parties the possibility of conviction of the accused/petitioners herein is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case rather would put the accused/petitioners to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to them despite full and complete settlement and compromise with respondent No. 4. Further continuation of proceedings arising out of FIR in question would be unfair and contrary to the interests of justice and in essence would amount to abuse of process of law, therefore, this Court is of the opinion that in view of settlement and compromise arrived at between the respondent No. 4 and the accused/petitioners, it would be appropriate and in the interest of justice to put an end to the proceedings by quashing the FIR in question. Therefore, FIR No. 21/2018 dated 24.12.2018 registered at Police Station, Women Cell, Jammu, for commission of offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 109 RPC is accordingly, quashed. 17. Disposed of along with all connected CrLMs.