Girish Bansal And Others vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Another

Vivek Singh Thakur, J

The instant petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (herein after referred to as ‘Cr.PC’), has been filed by petitioners-

accused, on the basis of compromise arrived at between petitioner No. 1 Girish Bansal and complainant-respondent No. 2 Neha Patial, for quashing

FIR No. 94 of 2019, dated 12.8.2019, under sections 498-A, 506 and 34 IPC, registered in Police Station East, Shimla and criminal proceedings

initiated in pursuance thereto.

Petitioners and respondent No. 2, Neha Patial are present in person and are duly identified by their respective counsels and their statements, on

oath, have been recorded separately.

Respondent No. 2 Neha Patial in her statement has deposed that her marriage with petitioner No. 1 Girish Bansal was solemnized on 20.4.2019

according to Hindu rites and rituals in Hotel Marina, Shimla H.P. and after marriage, because of unavoidable circumstances and difference of opinion,

they could not live together and since 9th May, 2019 they are living separately and she had also lodged FIR No. 94 of 2019, dated 12.8.2019 in Police

Station East, Shimla against petitioners and now considering the fact that their relations are irretrievable, with the intervention of family friends and

others, they have decided to settle the matter amicably and in terms of compromise they agreed to file a joint petition for dissolution of marriage before

Family Court, which stands filed in the month of December, 2020 in the Family Court, Shimla and next date wherein has been fixed as 18.6.2021 and

as agreed, an application is being moved before Family Court, Shimla for early listing of that petition and petitioners have also agreed to pay

Rs.23,00,000/- lump sum amount in lieu of alimony etc. i.e. claims against petitioners and she has agreed to accept the same and out of Rs.23,00,000/-,

Rs.7,00,000/- stands paid at the time of filing of divorce petition with mutual consent before Family Court and second installment of Rs.8,00,000/- has

been paid to her today vide Demand Draft No. 108795, dated 5.1.2021, to be drawn in Central Bank of India, photocopy of same has also been placed

on record and third installment of Rs.8,00,000/- shall be paid at the time of recording of second motion statement before the Family Court in divorce

petition and the said amount she has accepted as full and final claim against all rights whatsoever moveable and immoveable properties belonging to

each other and as per compromise violation of terms of compromise deed, the party in violation shall be liable to pay double of the settled amount.

Further stated that as per compromise she has also agreed to withdraw her complainant and for quashing of FIR and Criminal Proceedings arising

in consequence thereto against the petitioners and, therefore, she has prayed for permission to withdraw the complaint with further prayer for

quashing of FIR and consequential criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners. She has further stated that compromise arrived at between

them has also been reduced into writing and the same has been signed by her and petitioner No. 1 Girish Bansal in presence of witnesses, including

her father and original thereof has been placed on record along with this petition and she has seen the compromise on record and has endorsed her

signatures thereon. She has further stated that she has entered into compromise and has deposed in the Court, out of her free will, consent and also

without any external pressure, coercion or threat of any kind.

Petitioner No. 1 in his statement has endorsed the statement made by complainant Neha Patial (respondent No. 2) to be true and correct and

identified signatures on the compromise and has stated further that he has entered and signed the compromise out of his free will and without any

threat, coercion or pressure.

Petitioners No. 2 and 3 in their joint statement have also endorsed the statement made by complainant Neha Patial (respondent No. 2) to be true

and also endorsed the compromise entered between Neha Patial respondent No. 2 and Girish Bansal respondent No.1.

It is contended on behalf of respondent-State that petitioner/accused are not entitled to invoke inherent jurisdiction of this Court to exercise its

power on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties with respect to an offence not compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C.

It is apt to record herein that a three Judges Bench of the Apex Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Others reported in (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 predominatingly 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.

The Apex Court in Parbatbhai Aahir alias Parbathbhai Bhimsinghbhai Karmur and others vs. State of Gujarat and another, (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.

The Apex Court in case Narinder Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab and Others reported in (2014) 6 SCC 46 6and also in State of Madhya

Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and Others (2019) 5 SCC 68 8has 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.

No doubt Sections 498-A IPC is not compoundable under Section 320 Cr. P.C. 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.PC 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.PC, if it is 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.

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.

Offences in question, for material on record, do not fall in the category of offences termed to be prohibited, in the pronouncements of Apex Court,

to be compounded exercising power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

Keeping in view the ratio of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court and considering facts and evidence of the case in its entirety, present

petition is allowed and matter is permitted to be compounded. Consequently, FIR No. 94 of 2019, dated 12.8.2019, registered at Police East Shimla is

quashed. Consequent to quashing of FIR No. 94 of 2019, criminal proceedings, if any, also stand quashed.

Petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so also pending applications, if any.

Copy Dasti.