Yatin Gupta And Others vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others

Anoop Chitkara, J

The petitioners, who stand arraigned as accused in the FIR mentioned above, have come up before this Court under Section 482, Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973, to quash the proceedings given the compromise between the estranged wife and her in-laws.

Ld. Counsel for the parties submitted that the parties have resolved the criminal dispute between them and seek quashing of the FIR mention above

and closure of all consequential proceedings.

ANALYSIS:

The following aspects would be relevant to conclude this petition: -

a) The incident relates to matrimonial discord.

b) On 14.7.2021, this Court had recorded the statements of complainant-wife (respondent No.4 herein) and accused-husband (petitioner No.1 herein),

wherein they testified about compromise and prayed for quashing of FIR.

c) The parties have amicably settled the matter between them in terms of the compromise deed (Annexure P-2). The complainant does not dispute

this compromise deed.

d) In the given facts, the occurrence was limited and confined between relatives and does not affect public peace or tranquility.

e) The rejection of compromise may also lead to ill will, and the purpose of criminal jurisprudence is reformatory in nature and to work for bringing

peace in family and society.

f) The pendency of trial affects career and happiness.

g) Even if this case is put to trial, the parties are likely to maintain the stand they have taken in this compromise, which is expected to result in the

accused's acquittal.

h) Accused are the first offenders.

i) The accused are facing prosecution for the last three years.

JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS ON QUASHING UNDER SECTION 498-A IPC:

In Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 7 SCC 667, Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that [30]“It is a matter of common experience

that most of these complaints under Section 498A Indian Penal Code are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper

deliberations. We come across a large number of such complaints which are not even bonafide and are filed with oblique motive. At the same time,

rapid increase in the number of genuine cases of dowry harassment are also a matter of serious concern.[32]Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the

complaint the implications and consequences are not properly visualised by the complainant that such complaint can lead to insurmountable

harassment, agony and pain to the complainant, accused and his close relations.[33]. The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and punish

the guilty and protect the innocent. To find out the truth is a herculean task in majority of these complaints. The tendency of implicating husband and

all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. The

courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing

with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment of husband's close relations who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely

visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complaint are required to be

scrutinised with great care and circumspection. Experience reveals that long and protracted criminal trials lead to rancour, acrimony and bitterness in

the relationship amongst the parties. It is also a matter of common knowledge that in cases filed by the complainant if the husband or the husband's

relations had to remain in jail even for a few days, it would ruin the chances of amicable settlement altogether. The process of suffering is extremely

long and painful.â€​

In Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P., 2012(10) SCC 741, Para 28, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds that “We, therefore, deem it just and legally

appropriate to quash the proceedings initiated against the appellants Geeta Mehrotra and Ramji Mehrotra as the FIR does not disclose any material

which could be held to be constituting any offence against these two appellants. Merely by making a general allegation that they were also involved in

physical and mental torture of the complainant-respondent No. 2 without mentioning even a single incident against them as also the fact as to how they

could be motivated to demand dowry when they are only related as brother and sister of the complainant's husband, we are pleased to quash and set

aside the criminal proceedings in so far as these appellants are concerned and consequently the order passed by the High Court shall stand

overruled.â€​

STAGE OF QUASHING FIR:

In Ashok Chaturvedi v Shitul H. Chanchani, 1998(7) SCC 698, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds that the determination of the question as regards

the propriety of the order of the Magistrate taking cognizance and issuing process need not necessarily wait till the stage of framing the charge. The

Court holds, “…This argument, however, does not appeal to us inasmuch as merely because an accused has a right to plead at the time of framing

of charges that there is no sufficient material for such framing of charges as provided in Section 245 of the Criminal Procedure Code, he is debarred

from approaching the court even at an earliest (sic earlier) point of time when the Magistrate takes cognizance of the offence and summons the

accused to appear to contend that the very issuance of the order of taking cognizance is invalid on the ground that no offence can be said to have

been made out on the allegations made in the complaint petition. It has been held in a number of cases that power under Section 482 has to be

exercised sparingly and in the interest of justice. But allowing the criminal proceeding to continue even where the allegations in the complaint petition

do not make out any offence would be tantamount to an abuse of the process of court, and therefore, there cannot be any dispute that in such case

power under section 482 of the Code can be exercised.

In Girish Sarwate v. State of A.P., 2005(1) R.C.R.(Criminal) 758, the Full Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court observed that the High Court need

not wait for completion of investigation and taking cognizance by the Magistrate.

NON-COMPOUNDABLE OFFENCES CAN BE QUASHED:

In the present case, the offence under Section 498-A IPC is not compoundable under Section 320 CrPC. However, in Saloni Rupam Bhartiya v

Rupam Prahlad Bhartiya, 2015(4) R.C.R.(Criminal) 172, a three Judges Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court, while dealing with Section 498-A of

IPC, which was non-compoundable offence, holds “It was submitted by learned counsel for the parties that in the light of the above subsequent

developments especially the fact that the marriage between the parties itself stands dissolved by a decree passed by a competent court, nothing really

remained between the parties to be addressed and that the conviction of the respondent-husband under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code could

be set aside. We see no reason to decline that prayer. In the circumstances, therefore, and in the light of the fact that the parties have successfully

negotiated an amicable settlement sinking and resolving all their differences and disputes and finding a lasting solution on all the outstanding issues

between themselves, we see no reason why the conviction recorded by the courts below and the sentence of imprisonment till the rising of the Court,

which the respondent has already undergone should continue to blemish the respondent-husband. We accordingly set aside the judgment and order of

conviction of the respondent under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.â€​

CONCLUSION:

Although, the withdrawal of FIR would be through District Magistrate as a routine procedure. However, the High Court's inherent jurisdiction under

Section 482 of the CRPC, to intervene in such kind of matter, and it is not the requirement of law that the cancellation has to be approved only through

the District Magistrate. Inherent Jurisdiction of the High Court under section 482 CrPC can always be exercised, depending upon the facts and

circumstances. The parties are likely to live together for a lifetime, and intervention would create a cordial environment for peaceful relations between

them.

This Court has inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to interfere in this kind of matter. Given the entirety of the

case and judicial precedents, I am of the considered opinion that the continuation of these proceedings will not suffice any fruitful purpose whatsoever.

In the present case, the offenses are not compoundable under section 320 CrPC. Be that as it may, this Court is inclined to invoke the inherent

jurisdiction under section 482 CrPC to quash the FIR and all subsequent proceedings in the peculiar facts and circumstances.

In Himachal Pradesh Cricket Association v State of Himachal Pradesh, 2018 (4) Crimes 324, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds “[47]. As far

as Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 135 of 2017 is concerned, the appellants came to this Court challenging the order of cognizance only because of the

reason that matter was already pending as the appellants had filed the Special Leave Petitions against the order of the High Court rejecting their

petition for quashing of the FIR/Chargesheet. Having regard to these peculiar facts, writ petition has also been entertained. In any case, once we hold

that FIR needs to be quashed, order of cognizance would automatically stands vitiated.â€​

In Shakuntala Sawhney v Kaushalya Sawhney, (1979) 3 SCR 639, at p 642, Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the finest hour of Justice

arises propitiously when parties, who fell apart, bury the hatchet and weave a sense of fellowship or reunion.

Given above, because of the compromise, this is a fit case where the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure is invoked to quash the proceedings mentioned above. The FIR mentioned above is quashed, and all the consequential proceedings

are also quashed and set aside. The bail bonds are accordingly discharged. All pending application(s), if any, stand closed.

In the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, the petition is allowed in the aforementioned terms.

Copy Dasti.