Sonu vs State Of H.P And Others

Vivek Singh Thakur, J

The instant petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.PC’) has been filed by petitioner, on the basis of compromise arrived at between the private parties, for quashing of FIR No.80 of 2019, dated 9.10.2019, registered in Police Station Jubbal, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’) and Sections 4&6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘POCSO Act’).

Petitioner Sonu, complainant-respondent No.3 Govind, respondent No.2 Neha Kumari, mother of complainant respondent No.4 Roshni Devi were present in person on 8.4.2022 and they were identified by their respective counsel. Their statements were separately recorded and placed on the file.

Complainant-respondent No.3 Govind had stated that on 9.10.2019 his daughter Neha informed him about her affairs with the petitioner and also about her physical violation by the petitioner on that day and, therefore, he alongwith his mother Roshni Devi and his daughter Neha visited the Police Station and reported the matter, on the basis of which FIR was registered. He had further stated that lateron he noticed that his daughter was in deep love with petitioner Sonu and Sonu was also in deep love with his daughter and, therefore, he solemnized the marriage of his daughter Neha with petitioner Sonu. He had also stated that the name of his daughter has also been entered in the Family Register of Gram Panchayat Kuddu and that his daughter and the petitioner have been blessed with a daughter, whose name has also been entered in the Family Register. He had further stated that he had accompanied his daughter to the Police Station for lodging the FIR in order to protect the interests of his daughter, and that lateron he realized that interest of his daughter was in solemnizing her marriage with the petitioner. He has further stated that now the criminal proceedings arising out of the FIR, which was registered for saving the interest of his daughter, are coming in the way of happy family life of his daughter, continuation whereof shall have adverse impact upon the child and the couple, and that now he alongwith his mother and daughter Neha have decided to not to pursue the criminal case against petitioner Sonu, and that they have no objection for allowing the petition for quashing the FIR for compounding the case and for closing the criminal proceedings initiated in pursuance thereto.

In his statement, petitioner Sonu, endorsing the statement of respondent No.3 Govind to be true and correct, had stated that respondent No.2 Neha is his wife and that she is mother of his daughter. He had undertaken to keep Neha happy and to maintain her in future.

In her statement respondent No.4 Roshni Devi, endorsing the statement of respondent No.3 Govind to be true and correct, had stated that it is in the interest of all that the FIR is quashed and the criminal proceedings are closed.

In her statement, respondent No.2 Neha had also endorsed the statement of her father respondent No.3 Govind and that of her grandmother respondent No.4 Roshni Devi to be true and correct and had further stated that she is residing in village Kuddu with petitioner and his family. She had further stated that they (she and petitioner) have been blessed with a daughter. She had also stated that the petitioner has undertaken to maintain and keep her happy. She has also prayed for quashing of the FIR.

Respondent No.3 Govind, respondent No.4 Roshni Devi, respondent No.2 Neha and petitioner Sonu, in their respective statements, have stated that they have deposed in the Court out of their free will and consent, and without any threat, external pressure or coercion of any kind.

It is contended on behalf of respondent - State that this is not a fit case to invoke the 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.

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.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 Parbhathbhai 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 Section 376 IPC and Sections 4 & 6 of the POCSO Act are 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 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.

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; Himachal Pradesh & another, decided on 18.09.2018; Cr.MMO No. 244 of 2019, titled as X vs. State of H.P. & others, decided on 07.05.2019; Criminal Miscellaneous (Main) No. 139 of 2018, titled Sahil Chaudhary vs. State of H.P. and another, decided on 26.5.2018; Cr.MMO No. 464 of 2018, titled as Shri Devi vs. State of H.P. and another, decided on 9.8.2019; Cr.MMO No.377 of 2019, titled as Shishpal vs. State of H.P. and another, decided on 27.8.2019; Cr.MMO No. 41 of 2019, titled as Ravi Goyal and another vs. State of H.P. and others, decided on 24.9.2019; Rahul Thakur Vs. State of H.P., reported in 2020(2) Shim.LC 629; Cr.MMO No. 423 of 2020, titled as Rajneesh Kumari Vs. State, decided on 15.3.2021; Cr.MMO No. 144 of 2021, Ashok Kumar Vs. State, decided on 27.4.2021; and CRMMO No.104 of 2022, titled as Sukh Dev v. State of H.P. & others, decided on 25.3.2022, wherein even 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.

It is a case where two societal interests are in clash. To punish the offender for a crime, involved in present case, is in the interest of society, but, at the same time, respondent-victim has solemnized marriage with petitioner Sonu and they have been blessed with a female child and are living happily and harmoniously and it is also in the interest of society to settle and re-settle the family for their welfare. Respondent No. 3-complainant Govind, father of victim has submitted that he intends to withdraw complaint as continuation of case shall adversely affect the future prospects of his daughter as well as her family life harming her interest as well as interest of the child.

Keeping in view nature and gravity of offence and 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. 80 of 2019, dated 9.10.2019, registered in Police Station Jubbal, District Shimla, H.P. is quashed. Consequent to quashing of FIR, criminal proceedings arising thereto, pending in the trial Court, against accused-petitioner Sonu, are also quashed.

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

Copy Dasti.