Ajay Kumar vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Another

Sandeep Sharma, J

By way of instant petition filed under S.482 CrPC, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioners for quashing of FIR No. 30, dated 29.4.2021 under Sections 498A, 323 and 506 IPC registered at Police Station Gohar, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh alongwith consequential proceedings pending in the competent court of law, on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2) arrived inter se parties.

Precisely, the facts of the case are that the FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceeding, came to be lodged at the behest of respondent No.2/complainant-Dimple, who alleged that her marriage with the petitioner was solemnized in April, 2016 as per Hindu rites and customs but immediately after marriage, she was harassed for bringing less dowry. She disclosed to the police that in the year 2017, she gave birth to one child, but thereafter, her husband/petitioner stopped maintaining her and her minor child, as such, she was compelled to stay at her parental house. Having taken note of the allegations in the complaint, FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceeding came to be lodged against the petitioner. Police, after completion of investigation, has filed Challan in the competent court of law but before same could be taken to logical end, parties have entered into compromise, whereby they resolved to settle the matter inter se them amicably. In the aforesaid background, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for quashment of FIR alongwith consequential proceedings pending in the competent court of law.

Pursuant to order dated 1.5.2023, respondent-State has filed status report issued under the signatures of Station House Officer, Police Station Gohar and ASI Baldev Raj, investigating officer, Police Station Gohar, Mandi, has come present in the court. In the status report, factum with regard to compromise arrived inter se parties has been duly acknowledged and statement of complainant has been annexed thereto, in which complainant has categorically stated that she does not wish to prosecute the case further.

Respondent No.2/complainant has also come present in the court and she states on oath that she of her own volition and without there being any external pressure has entered into compromise with the petitioner, whereby they have resolved to settle the dispute inter se them amicably. She states that FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceeding, is result of misunderstanding coupled with the fact that the petitioner has apologized for his misbehaviour and undertaken not to repeat the same in future, as such, she does not wish to prosecute the case further against the petitioner and she shall have no objection, in case FIR in question alongwith consequential proceedings is quashed and set aside and accused is acquitted of the charges framed against him. While admitting the contents of compromise to be correct, she also admits her signatures thereupon. His statement is taken on record.

Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, after having heard the statement of respondent No. 2, states that keeping in view the compromise arrived inter se parties, chances of conviction of the petitioner are remote and bleak, as such, respondent-State shall have no objection in case prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for quashment of FIR alongwith consequential proceedings is allowed.

The question which now needs consideration is whether FIR’s in question can be ordered to be quashed when Hon'ble Apex Court in Narinder Singh and others versus State of Punjab and another (2014)6 SCC 466 has specifically held that power under S. 482 CrPC is not to be exercised in the cases which involve 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.

At this stage, it would be relevant to take note of the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Narinder Singh (supra), whereby the Hon’ble Apex Court has formulated guidelines for accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings. Perusal of judgment referred to above clearly depicts that in para 29.1, Hon’ble Apex Court has returned the findings that power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable and where the parties have settled the matter between themselves, however, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with great caution. In para Nos. 29 to 29.7 of the judgment Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down certain parameters to be followed, while compounding offences.

Careful perusal of para 29.3 of the judgment suggests that such a power is not to be exercised in the cases which involve 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. Apart from this, offences committed under special statute like the 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. On the other hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes may be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves. Aforesaid view taken by Hon'ble Apex Court has been further reiterated in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and anr. (2012) 10 SCC 303.

The Hon’ble Apex Court in case Gian Singh supra has held that power of the High Court in quashing of the criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent power is distinct and different from the power of a Criminal Court for compounding offences under Section 320 Cr.PC. Even in the judgment passed in Narinder Singh’s case, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that while exercising inherent power of quashment under Section 482 Cr.PC the Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime and its social impact and it cautioned the Courts not to exercise the power for quashing proceedings in heinous and serious offences of mental depravity, murder, rape, dacoity etc. However subsequently, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Dimpey Gujral and Ors. vs. Union Territory through Administrator, UT, Chandigarh and Ors. (2013( 11 SCC 497 has further reiterated that continuation of criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law because the alleged offences are not heinous offences showing extreme depravity nor are they against the society. Hon'ble Apex Court further observed that when offences of a personal nature, burying them would bring about peace and amity between the two sides.

Hon’ble Apex Court in its judgment dated 4th October, 2017, titled as Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others versus State of Gujarat and Another, passed in Criminal Appeal No.1723 of 2017 arising out of SLP(Crl) No.9549 of 2016, reiterated the principles/ parameters laid down in Narinder Singh’s case supra for accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings.

In the case at hand, offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioner are petty in nature and further the parties have entered into compromise with each other. Since the respondent No.2 is no more interested in pursuing the criminal proceedings against the petitioner, there are bleak and remote chances of conviction of accused and no fruitful purpose shall be achieved by continuing with criminal prosecution of the petitioner as such, this court sees no impediment in accepting the prayer made by petitioners for quashing of FIR.

Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court (supra), FIR No. 30, dated 29.4.2021 under Sections 498A, 323 and 506 IPC registered at Police Station Gohar, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh alongwith consequential proceedings pending in before learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chachiot at Gohar, Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, are quashed and set aside and petitioner is acquitted of the charges framed against her.

The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms, alongwith all pending applications.

Copy Dasti.