Raj Kumar vs State Of H.P. & Another

Vivek Singh Thakur, J

This petition has been preferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 45 of 2016, dated 9.10.2016, registered under Sections 363 and

366 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter in short ‘IPC’) and 8 of POCSO Act at Police Station Ramshehar, District Solan HP and quashing of

proceedings initiated in pursuant thereto pending in the concerned Court.

Petitioner No.2 Krishan Lal is complainant, who is present in Court today and vide separate statement on oath, he has stated that he is father of

Kanchan, whose date of birth is 1st January, 1999 and in October, 2016 she had eloped with petitioner Raj Kumar, whereupon, he had lodged FIR No.

45 of 2016. He has stated that at that time, Kanchan was three months short to attain the age of discretion, but, later on his daughter had informed him

that she had been living with petitioner Raj Kumar happily with intention to marry him on attaining the age of discretion. He has also stated that in

those days, Raj Kumar was serving in a hotel near their village and after considering the desire of his daughter Kanchan and petitioner Raj Kumar, he

had arranged their marriage on 10th January, 2017 by organizing a small function in local temple of village and thereafter, affidavits of petitioner and

daughter regarding solemnization of marriage were also sworn and since then, his daughter is residing with Raj Kumar petitioner and couple is happy.

He has further stated that he had lodged FIR for protecting the interest of his daughter and now, her interest is in quashing of FIR as in case

proceedings, in pursuance of FIR lodged by him, are permitted to be continued, it will adversely affect the married life of his daughter and she will be a

victim of the case, which has been lodged for protecting her interest and therefore, he has entered into the compromise with Raj Kumar petitioner and

he does not intend to pursue the case. He has also stated that compromise is out of his free will, consent and also without any kind of threat, coercion

or pressure etc.

Petitioner Raj Kumar as well as Kanchan, daughter of complainant herein, are present in Court today and vide separate statements, they have

stated that they have heard statement of complainant and endorse the same to be true and correct and now they are living together in village Diggal,

which is adjacent to the parental village of Kanchan. They have endorsed that compromise is out of their free will, consent and also without any kind

of threat, coercion or pressure etc.

Quashing of FIR in present petition has been prayed on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties, photocopy whereof has been

placed on record, which is duly signed by parties. All of them have endorsed the compromise.

In reply, filed on behalf of respondent/State, the marriage of daughter of respondent No.2 Kanchan Devi with petitioner has been admitted,

however, quashing of FIR has been opposed on the ground that if present petition is allowed the whole practice and investigation conducted by police

will become futile and it will be the sheer abuse of process of law.

Three Judges Bench of the Apex Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Ors. 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.PC, 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.PC 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 others 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 363 and 366 IPC are not compoundable only with the permission of Court. 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 CrPC and FIR as well as criminal proceedings can be quashed by exercising inherent

powers under Section 482 CrPC, if 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.

Observations with respect to individual, family and societal interest, made by this Court in case Rahul Thakur vs. State of H, reported in 2020(2)

Shim.LC 629, are also relevant in present case which are as under:-

“13. Observation of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in similar case decided on 12.01.2017 in Cr.MMO No. 385 of 2016, titled as Chander Vir

Kaundal vs. State of H.P., would also be relevant, where it is recorded that looking at the case from another angle, since the petitioner has solemnized

marriage with respondent, obviously, there is no possibility of her supporting the charge in case the petitioner is put to trial. Therefore, in such

circumstances, the continuation of criminal proceedings would only cause untoward torture or harassment apart from creating undue social and

psychological pressure upon the private parties and it will be an extremely sad story in case complainant is called in the witness box to depose against

the accused, who is none other than her husband.

In present case also, deposition of victim in the Court in consonance with prosecution case would lead to landing her husband and parents in jail

and pushing her in pitch dark and unnecessary trouble.

Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner has also referred to judgments passed by the Coordinate Benches in Cr.MMO No. 301 of 2018,

decided on 24.04.2019, titled as Asha Devi & others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & another; Cr.MMO No. 399 of 2018, decided on 18.09.2018,

titled as Kajal & another vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & another; Cr.MMO No. 244 of 2019, decided on 07.05.2019 titled as X vs. State of H.P. &

others, Criminal Miscellaneous (Main) No. 139 of 2018, decided on 26.5.2018, titled Sahil Chaudhary vs. State of H.P. and another, Cr.MMO No. 464

of 2018 decided on 9.8.2019 titled as Shri Devi vs. State of H.P. and another, Cr.MMO No. 377 of 2019 decided on 27.8.2019 titled as Shishpal vs.

State of H.P. and another and Cr.MMO No. 41 of 2019 decided on 24.9.2019 titled as Ravi Goyal and another vs. State of H.P. and others wherein

FIRs registered under Section 376 IPC and in some cases under Section 376 IPC read with provisions of POCSO Act have also been quashed in

similar circumstances where victims and accused had married to each other.

The ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court on the issue of permitting quashing of FIR in such cases, the Courts must consider the interest of

public at large and the offence offending the Society at large should not be permitted to be compromised and quashing of FIR or criminal proceedings

on the basis of such compromise should not be permitted. Present case is somewhat different from general category, as in present case, it is not on

the basis of compromise that quashing of FIR has been sought for, but it is a case where interest of victim is also involved and welfare of victim

appears to be in closing criminal proceedings as she has proclaimed herself to be wife of accused and the case has been registered against petitioner-

accused, only for the reason that at that time victim below 18 years of age and further, it is not a case where it can be said that victim was abducted

forcefully and ravished mercilessly and was used as an instrument of enjoyment and thrown out after the use but it is a case where sexual intercourse

was consensual for misrepresentation on the part of victim and now victim is living in her matrimonial house happily. Now in the facts and

circumstances of the case, this case cannot be termed as a case subjecting the victim-complainant forcibly to illicit sexual intercourse. Further, it is a

peculiar kind of case where there is a conflict between interest of victim and societal interest. Interest of victim is not purely private in nature as

rehabilitation and survival of victim is another issue which involves public interest because to ensure rehabilitation and provide resources for survival of

victim is also responsibility of society. Considering entire facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, balance lies in favour of the prayer of the

victim.

Family is a primary unit of society, which gives protection to all family members. Therefore, there is always endeavour to save the family. By

saving a family, we definitely save the fabric of society and thus any endeavour to save the family is also interest of society. Therefore, in present

case, there is conflict of interest not only between victim and societal interest but also amongst divergent societal interest i.e. to continue proceedings

for commission of an offence having adverse impact on the society and to save the family in larger interest of society.â€​

Keeping in view the fact that complainant, who appeared in person and endorsed the compromise arrived at with petitioner/accused and now his

daughter and petitioner are living happily under one roof, I find that it is a fit case to exercise power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and further even

otherwise, in view of statement of the complainant, if criminal proceedings are allowed to continue, the same will adversely affect the married life of

his daughter and she will be a victim of a case, which has been registered by him for protecting her daughter’s interest.

Considering facts and circumstances of the case in entirety, I am of the opinion that present petition deserves to be allowed for ends of justice and

the same is allowed accordingly and FIR No. 45 of 2016, dated 9.10.2016, registered against the petitioner/accused under Sections 363 and 366 IPC at

P.S. Ramshehar District Solan H.P. is quashed. Consequent to quashing of said FIR, criminal proceedings pending in the concerned Court are also

quashed.

Petition stands disposed of in above terms, so also pending application, if any.