Karan Singh and Another vs State of Himachal Pradesh and Another

Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J.—In this petition, a prayer has been made for quashing of FIR No. 73/2009, registered under Sections 498A, 406 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners (accused persons) and their co-accused late Hans Raj and Kamla Devi, in Police Station, Amb, at the instance of the second respondent, who was the wife of deceased accused Hans Raj, whereas daughter-in-law of accused-petitioner Ram Nath and deceased Kamla Devi and sister-in-law of accused-petitioner Karan Singh, on the ground that they have entered into a compromise with her. Respondent No. 2 has stated in her affidavit Annexure P-2 that it is on account of some misunderstanding between her and the accused persons, she registered the FIR against them and that after registration of the FIR she is now residing in matrimonial home and her relations with the accused-petitioners are also cordial. Therefore, she is no more interested to pursue the criminal case registered against them at her instance. Similar recitals find mentioned in the deed of compromise Annexure P-3 duly signed by the respondent-complainant and on behalf of accused persons by her deceased husband Hans Raj, whereas witnessed by five persons. The offence the accused-petitioners allegedly committed is not compoundable. The apex Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another, in a case where the offence allegedly committed is not compoundable has allowed the quashing of criminal proceedings against an accused in a case where the accused entered into compromise with the victim i.e. complainant in a case of this nature. The relevant portion of this judgment reads as follows:

Where High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that dispute between the offender and victim has been settled although offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. No doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful effect on the public and consist in wrong doing that seriously endangers and threatens well-being of society and it is not safe to leave the crime-doer only because he and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the victim has been paid compensation, yet certain crimes have been made compoundable in law, with or without permission of the Court. In respect of serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc; or other offences of mental depravity under IPC or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between offender and victim can have no legal sanction at all. However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavor having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to victim and the offender and victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or F.I.R. if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated. The above list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Each case will depend on its own facts and no hard and fast category can be prescribed.

In the case in hand, the second respondent, who is the victim of the offence the accused-petitioners allegedly committed, has entered into a compromise with them. Above all, the principal accused who was her husband Hans Raj and her mother-in-law Kamla Devi unfortunately died in a motor vehicle accident. The trial against the accused-petitioners has not yet commenced as it is only the challan has been presented against them. In such peculiar circumstances, the present is a case where in the considered opinion of this Court to allow the proceedings to continue will be an exercise in futility as by no stretch of imagination such proceedings are likely to culminate in the conviction of the accused-petitioners. The present, therefore, is a case squarely covered by the ratio of the judgment of apex Court in Gian Singh''s case supra. I, therefore, accept the present petition and quash FIR No. 73/2009, registered in Police Station, Amb, District Una and subsequent proceedings. The petition stands disposed of accordingly, so also the pending application, if any.