Rajeev Kumar and Others vs State of H.P. and Another

Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J.—Heard. The question brought to this Court in the present petition is with regard to the quashing of criminal proceedings initiated by the 2nd respondent against the petitioners on the ground that the parties have now settled the dispute amicably in terms of the deed of compromise Annexure P-1 to this petition.

The 2nd respondent had solemnized marriage with petitioner No. 1 on 3.10.2008. Unfortunately, after the marriage on account of misunderstandings, there arose differences between them and their relations became strained. They started living separately. The 2nd respondent made an application u/s 156(3) Cr. P.C. for a direction to the police to register a case against the petitioners under Sections 498-A, 323, 406 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Pursuant to the order passed in the said application by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Amb, District Una, FIR No. 59/2011 was registered against them on 4.5.2011 in Police Station, Amb. The investigation is now complete and report u/s 173 Cr. P.C. stands filed in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No. 1, Amb. The trial, however, has not yet commenced, as according to learned counsel charge is also not yet framed and the case is fixed for 18th June, 2013. In the meanwhile, the 2nd respondent, who as a matter of fact, is the victim, seems to have compromised the matter with the petitioners vide deed of compromise Annexure P-1 and agreed to withdraw the FIR registered against them and also for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce with mutual consent. It is in view of such agreed terms and conditions, the 2nd respondent and petitioner No. 1 had filed a petition u/s 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act in the Court of District Judge, Una, for dissolution of their marriage by a decree of divorce with mutual consent. The said application came to be registered as HMA No. 35-III/2012. The same now stands allowed vide order dated 24.5.2013 and thereby the marriage between the 2nd respondent and petitioner No. 1 stands dissolved with immediate effect by a decree of divorce with mutual consent. A copy of the order alongwith that of statement of petitioner No. 1 has been placed on record by learned counsel.

It is in the aforesaid backdrop, learned counsel has contended that to allow the criminal proceedings to continue against the petitioners would amount to abuse of process of law and rightly so, because the 2nd respondent, who as a matter of fact, is the victim and also the complainant, has now settled the dispute amicably with the petitioners. No doubt appropriate application under Sections 320 and 321 Cr. P.C. for compounding the offence could have been filed in the trial Court, however, the offence allegedly committed by the petitioners u/s 498-A IPC is not compoundable u/s 320 or 321 Cr. P.C. Otherwise also, the law on the issue is no more res integra as the Hon''ble Apex Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another, has categorically held that the High Court in exercise of inherent powers vested in it under Sections 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, may quash the FIR in those cases where the offence allegedly committed is not compoundable, however, the victim and the accused have settled the dispute amicably, of course 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 done basically is to the victim. As a matter of fact the Hon''ble Apex Court has bifurcated the cases in two categories, firstly involving serious offences like rape, dacoity and corruption cases etc. The practice of compounding of such cases on the basis of compromise has been deprecated for the reason that such offences have serious impact in the society at large. However, the prosecution in the cases of 2nd category, the consequences whereof are personal in nature to the victim, can be quashed by the High Court, in case there is settlement between the victim and the accused. The ratio of the judgment supra, 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 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.

If coming to the case in hand, the marriage of 2nd respondent with petitioner No. 1 stands dissolved by a decree of divorce with mutual consent. She has even entered into compromise with the petitioners and agreed to withdraw the case registered against them vide FIR No. 59 of 2011 at her instance. It is for this reason, she opted not to put in appearance in this petition despite service. In such a situation, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners pursuant to FIR No. 59/2011 in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Court No. 1, Amb, to continue for the reason that the parties have already settled the dispute, therefore, the result in that case ultimately will be nil. Therefore, it would not be improper to conclude that to allow the criminal proceedings to continue against the petitioners would amount to nothing, but abuse of process of law. Being so, I accept this petition and quash FIR No. 59/2011 registered against the petitioners under Sections 498-A, 323, 406 read with Section 34 IPC in Police Station, Amb, District Una. Petition stands disposed of accordingly.