Prashant Kumar and Others vs State of H.P. and Others

Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J.—Heard.

In this petition, filed by the accused-petitioners, who are husband, mother-in-law and sisters-in-law, a prayer has been made for quashing of criminal proceedings initiated by the respondent No. 4-wife against her husband (petitioner No. 1) and his mother as well as sisters vide FIR No. 123 of 2010 under Section 498-A, read with Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code registered in Police Station, Nalagarh, District Solan on the grounds inter alia that they have reconciled all the differences amicably and that the complainant-wife is now not interested in prosecuting the criminal proceedings she initiated against them, any further.

Petitioner No. 1-husband and respondent No. 4-wife are present in person. Their statements have been recorded separately. The respondent-complainant in her statement has stated that now an amicable settlement is arrived at between the parties and, as such, she is no more interested to prosecute the criminal case registered at her instance against her husband and others, the accused-petitioner, any further. Her husband petitioner No. 1 has admitted the statement so made by the respondent-complainant to be true and correct. The record reveals that petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 4 had solemnized the marriage as per Hindu Rites and Customs on 01.01.2008 at Puna Maharashtra. After sometime, due to some matrimonial dispute, respondent No. 4-wife lodged FIR No. 123 of 2010, under Section 498-A read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code against her husband-petitioner No. 1 and others in Police Station, Nalagarh, District Solan. The investigation in that case is complete and challan stands filed, which presently is at the stage of consideration of charge in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Court No. 1, Nalagarh. In the meanwhile, the respondent-wife, who, as a matter of fact, is the victim, has amicably settled the dispute with her husband and other accused, during the course of proceedings in Criminal Revision No. 260 of 2012, in this Court.

No doubt, an appropriate application under Sections 320 or 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for compounding of an offence and withdrawal of prosecution in a criminal case could have only been filed in the trial Court. However, keeping in view that the offence punishable under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code is not compoundable one, therefore, no such application can be filed or entertained. On the other hand, the law on the issue is no more res-integra as the Apex Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another, has held that the High Court in exercise of inherent powers vested in it under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, may quash the FIR in appropriate cases having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions, matrimonial or relating to dowry etc., in which the wrong basically is done to the victim and irrespective of the offence not compoundable, the victim and the accused have settled the dispute amicably. However, as per this judgment, the apex Court, in cases of serious nature like rape, dacoity and corruption cases etc., had deprecated the practice of quashing FIR for the reason that such offences have serious impact in the society at large. This judgment reads as follows:--

"58. 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 flavour 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, respondent No. 4 is the victim. There is some settlement having been arrived at between her and her husband as well as the other accused persons, in Criminal Revision No. 260 of 2012, which was preferred before this Court by the accused petitioners. The terms and conditions of such settlement find mention in paras 2 and 3 of the application, Annexure P-2, i.e. qua the withdrawal of all the criminal cases and also other proceedings pending adjudication between the parties. Not only this, but the settlement so arrived at stands acted upon because petitioner No. 1-husband and respondent No. 4-wife are now living together in the matrimonial home in complete harmony and peace.

Being so, I accept this petition and quash FIR No. 123 of 2010 registered under Section 498-A, read with Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code against the petitioner-husband and his mother and sisters in Police Station, Nalagarh, District Solan and also all the consequential proceedings pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Court No. 1, Nalagarh, District Solan.

With the above observations, this petition stands finally disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.