Navdeep Singh & Other vs State Of H.P. And Another

Vivek Singh Thakur, J

This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the petitioners for quashing of FIR No.85/2020 dated

25.8.2020, registered at Police Station, Gagret, District Una, H.P., under Sections 498-A, 323, 325 and 34 IPC and consequential proceedings, if any.

Petitioners No.1 and 5 as well as respondent No.2 are present in the Court and identified as such by their respective counsel(s). It was jointly stated

by learned counsel for the parties that the parties have amicably settled the matter and respondent No.2 now does not want to pursue this case against

the petitione.

Respondent No. 2 Jyoti Devi in her statement has deposed that after doing her Post Graduation in English, she is now pursuing her studies in B.Ed

Course and that her marriage was solemnized with petitioner No. 1 Navdeep Singh on 26.10.2016 according to Hindu rites and rituals, however, due to

differences, their relations did not remain cordial, which also resulted into lodging of FIR No. 85 of 2020 in Police Post Daulatpur, Police Station

Gagret, District Una, H.P. and their differences arose to the extent that it was not possible for them to live under one roof, therefore, with the

intervention of elders and relatives, they have agreed to part with each other with mutual consent by filing a divorce petition before District Judge, Una

and petitioner No. 1 Navdeep Singh had agreed to pay Rs.6,00,000/- as lumpsum amount for her maintenance including future maintenance and that in

fact petitioner has paid the said amount and besides this, ornaments and other articles gifted in the marriage have also been returned and now nothing

is due from each other and mutual divorce petition for dissolution of marriage has also been filed, which is pending consideration on 10.3.2021 before

District Judge, Una. Further deposed that as per settlement, she has agreed to take appropriate steps for cancellation/withdrawal of FIR lodged by her

and for closing the Criminal Proceedings incidental thereto, pending against petitioners in the trial Court, if any. 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.

Petitioners No. 1 and 5 in their joint statement have endorsed the statement made by complainant Jyoti Devi (respondent No. 2) to be true and

correct and identified their signatures on the compromise and have further stated that they have entered into and signed the compromise out of their

free will and without any threat, coercion or pressure.

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 O Rs. Vs. State of Punjab and Others reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 and also in State of Madhya

Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and Others (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.

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.

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.

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 of case in its entirety, which indicate that FIR

was result of matrimonial dispute which now stands compromised and settled, I am of considered view that it is a fit case for allowing the petition.

Therefore, matter is permitted to be compounded. Consequently, FIR No. 85 of 2020, dated 25.8.2020, registered at Police Station Gagret, District

Una, H.P. is quashed. Consequent to quashing of FIR No. 85 of 2020, criminal proceedings, if any, also stand quashed.

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

Copy Dasti.