SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

_______________________________________________________________ vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Ors on 10 January, 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr.MMO No.588 of 2018

.
Date of Decision: 10.1.2019

Tarun Kumar and Ors. ………Petitioners.

Versus

State of Himachal Pradesh Ors. ……….Respondents.
Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting1?

For the petitioners : Mr. Tanuj Thakur, Advocate.

For the respondents : Mr. S.C. Sharma and Mr. Dinesh Thakur,
r Additional Advocate Generals with Mr.

Amit Dhumal, Deputy Advocate
General.
Mr. Sanjay Verma, Advocate, for
proforma respondent No.4.

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

By way of instant petition filed under Section 482 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, prayer has been made on behalf of the

petitioners for quashing of the FIR No.133 of 2014, dated 21.5.2014,

registered at P.S. Baddi, District Solan, H.P., as well as consequent

proceedings pending in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate-II,

Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P., in view of the compromise arrived inter-se

parties during the pendency of the proceedings before the court

below.

Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment?

11/01/2019 23:02:45 :::HCHP
-2-

2. Facts, as emerge from the record are that marriage inter-se

petitioner No.1 and proforma respondent No.4 (Ms. Latika Kumari), was

.

solemnized on 16.11.2012 and out of the said wedlock, one daughter

namely Giana, was born on 22.12.2013, however, fact remains that both

proforma respondent No.4 and petitioner No.1 were unable to live

together for a long due to certain differences. After some time,

proforma respondent No.4 started living separately, whereafter she

lodged FIR No. 133 of 2014 dated 21.5.2014, at P.S. Baddi, District Solan,

H.P., alleging therein that she has been physically and mentally tortured

by the petitioners herein. After completion of investigation, police

presented the challan in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate-II,

Nalagarh District Solan, H.P., which is still pending adjudication.

3. However, during the pendency of the aforesaid

proceedings, before the court at Nalagarh, petitioner No.1 filed divorce

petition in the court of learned District Judge, Karnal, Haryana, which

came to be partly allowed, wherein decree of judicial separation came

to be passed inter-se petitioner No.1 and respondent No.4. Being

aggrieved and dis-satisfied with the passing of aforesaid decree passed

by the District Judge, Karnal, proforma respondent No.4 approached

the Punjab and Haryana High Court, by way of FAO No.999 of 2017. In

those proceedings, parties entered into compromise and agreed to

dissolve their marriage by way of mutual consent. High Court vide

11/01/2019 23:02:45 :::HCHP
-3-

judgment dated 2.11.20218 passed in FAO No. 999 of 2017 allowed the

appeal having been filed by the proforma respondent No.4 and

.

ordered for the dissolution of marriage inter-se petitioner and

respondent No.4 by way of mutual consent. Pursuant to aforesaid

judgment passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, formal

decree came to be passed on 2.11.2018.

4. Mr. Tanuj Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioners, while

referring to the aforesaid order passed by the High Court, contended

that in view of the amicable settlement arrived at inter-se parties, this

Court, while exercising power under Section 482 of the Cr.PC., may

proceed to quash the FIR as referred herein above,

5. On 31.12.2018, though this Court having perused material

available on record was convinced and satisfied that matter stands duly

compromised inter-se parties, but solely with a view to ascertain factum

with regard to genuineness and correctness of the documents adduced

on record by the petitioners, adjourned the matter for today, to ensure

presence of the proforma respondent No.4 (Ms. Latika Kumari), at

whose instance, aforesaid FIR came to be filed.

6. Ms. Latika Kumari, who has come present in Court, stated

on oath that she of her own volition and without there being any

external pressure has entered into compromise with the present

petitioners. She further stated that in the appeal having been filed by

11/01/2019 23:02:45 :::HCHP
-4-

her before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, she and petitioners

have agreed to dissolve their marriage by way of mutual consent and

.

the Hon’ble Court vide judgment and decree dated 2.11.2018, has

ordered for the dissolution of marriage inter-se her and petitioner No.1.

She further stated that in view of the annulment of her marriage with

petitioner No.1, she does not want to pursue FIR No. 133 dated

21.5.2014, registered at her behest at P.S. Baddi, District Solan, H.P.,

against the petitioners and have no objection, if same is ordered to be

quashed and set-aside.

r Her statement made on oath is taken on

record.

7. This Court, after having carefully perused the compromise,

which has been duly effected between the parties, sees substantial

force in the prayer having been made by the learned counsel for the

petitioner-accused that offences in the instant case can be ordered to

be compounded.

8. Since the petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.PC,

this Court deems it fit to consider the present petition in the light of the

judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Narinder Singh and others

versus State of Punjab and another (2014)6 Supreme Court Cases 466,

whereby Hon’ble Apex Court has formulated guidelines for accepting

the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the

settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings.

11/01/2019 23:02:45 :::HCHP
-5-

Perusal of judgment referred above clearly depicts that in para 29.1,

Hon’ble Apex Court has returned the findings that power conferred

.

under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power

which lies in the Court to compound the offences under section 320 of

the Code. No doubt, under section 482 of the Code, the High Court has

inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases

which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the

matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised

sparingly and with great caution. Para Nos. 29 to 29.7 of the judgment

are reproduced as under:-

“29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay
down the following principles by which the High Court would be
guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the

parties and exercising 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 the
criminal proceedings:

29.1Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be
distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound

the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under
Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to
quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not
compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between

themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and
with caution.

29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that
basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the
guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:

(i) ends of justice, or

(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court.

11/01/2019 23:02:45 :::HCHP
-6-

While exercising the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C the High Court
is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.

29.3. Such a power is not be exercised in those prosecutions which
involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or

.

offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not

private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, for
offences alleged to have been committed under special statute
like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by
Public Servants while working in that capacity are not to be

quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim
and the offender.

29.4. On the other, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and
pre-dominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of
commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship

or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have
resolved their entire disputes among themselves.

29.5. While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to
whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and

continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great
oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused

to him by not quashing the criminal cases.

29.6. Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of
heinous and serious offences and therefore is to be generally
treated as crime against the society and not against the individual

alone. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely
because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the
charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High
Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is

there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient
evidence, which if proved, would lead to proving the charge under
Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court

to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is
inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons
used etc. Medical report in respect of injuries suffered by the victim
can generally be the guiding factor. On the basis of this prima facie

analysis, the High Court can examine as to whether there is a strong
possibility of conviction or the chances of conviction are remote
and bleak. In the former case it can refuse to accept the settlement
and quash the criminal proceedings whereas in the later case it
would be permissible for the High Court to accept the plea
compounding the offence based on complete settlement between
the parties. At this stage, the Court can also be swayed by the fact
that the settlement between the parties is going to result in harmony
between them which may improve their future relationship.

29.7. While deciding whether to exercise its power under Section
482 of the Code or not, timings of settlement play a crucial role.
Those cases where the settlement is arrived at immediately after the

11/01/2019 23:02:45 :::HCHP
-7-

alleged commission of offence and the matter is still under
investigation, the High Court may be liberal in accepting the
settlement to quash the criminal proceedings/investigation. It is
because of the reason that at this stage the investigation is still on
and even the charge sheet has not been filed. Likewise, those

.

cases where the charge is framed but the evidence is yet to start or

the evidence is still at infancy stage, the High Court can show
benevolence in exercising its powers favourably, but after prima
facie assessment of the circumstances/material mentioned above.
On the other hand, where the prosecution evidence is almost
complete or after the conclusion of the evidence the matter is at

the stage of argument, normally the High Court should refrain from
exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code, as in such
cases the trial court would be in a position to decide the case
finally on merits and to come a conclusion as to whether the
offence under Section 307 IPC is committed or not. Similarly, in

those cases where the conviction is already recorded by the trial
court and the matter is at the appellate stage before the High
Court, mere compromise between the parties would not be a
ground to accept the same resulting in acquittal of the offender
who has already been convicted by the trial court. Here charge is
proved under Section 307 IPC and conviction is already recorded

of a heinous crime and, therefore, there is no question of sparing a

convict found guilty of such a crime”.

“32. We find from the impugned order that the sole reason which
weighed with the High Court in refusing to accept the settlement
between the parties was the nature of injuries. If we go by that

factor alone, normally we would tend to agree with the High Court’s
approach. However, as pointed out hereinafter, some other
attendant and inseparable circumstances also need to be kept in
mind which compels us to take a different view.

33. We have gone through the FIR as well which was recorded on
the basis of statement of the complainant/victim. It gives an

indication that the complainant was attacked allegedly by the
accused persons because of some previous dispute between the
parties, though nature of dispute, etc. is not stated in detail.
However, a very pertinent statement appears on record viz.

“respectable persons have been trying for a compromise up till
now, which could not be finalized.” This becomes an important
aspect. It appears that there have been some disputes which led to
the aforesaid purported attack by the accused on the complainant.
In this context when we find that the elders of the village, including
Sarpanch, intervened in the matter and the parties have not only
buried their hatchet but have decided to live peacefully in future,
this becomes an important consideration. The evidence is yet to be
led in the Court. It has not even started. In view of compromise
between parties, there is a minimal chance of the witnesses coming
forward in support of the prosecution case. Even though nature of
injuries can still be established by producing the doctor as witness
who conduced medical examination, it may become difficult to

11/01/2019 23:02:45 :::HCHP
-8-

prove as to who caused these injuries. The chances of conviction,
therefore, appear to be remote. It would, therefore, be unnecessary
to drag these proceedings. We, taking all these factors into
consideration cumulatively, are of the opinion that the compromise
between the parties be accepted and the criminal proceedings

.

arising out of FIR No.121 dated 14.7.2010 registered with police

station Lopoke, District Amritsar Rural be quashed. We order
accordingly.”

9. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case Gian Singh v. State of

Punjab and anr. (2012) 10 SCC 303 has held that power of the High

Court in quashing of the criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint in

exercise of its inherent power is distinct and different from the power of

a Criminal Court for compounding offences under Section 320 Cr.PC.

Even in the judgment passed in Narinder Singh’s case, the Hon’ble Apex

Court has held that while exercising inherent power under Section 482

Cr.PC the Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the

crime and its social impact and it cautioned the Courts not to exercise

the power for quashing proceedings in heinous and serious offences of

mental depravity, murder, rape, dacoity etc. However subsequently,

the Hon’ble Apex Court in Dimpey Gujral and Ors. vs. Union Territory

through Administrator, UT, Chandigarh and Ors. (2013( 11 SCC 497 has

also held as under:-

“7. In certain decisions of this Court in view of the settlement
arrived at by the parties, this Court quashed the FIRs though some
of the offences were non-compoundable. A two Judges’ Bench of
this court doubted the correctness of those decisions. Learned
Judges felt that in those decisions, this court had permitted
compounding of non-compoundable offences. The said issue
was, therefore, referred to a larger bench.

The larger Bench in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303
considered the relevant provisions of the Code and the judgments
of this court and concluded as under: (SCC pp. 342-43, para 61)

11/01/2019 23:02:45 :::HCHP
-9-

61. The position that emerges from the above discussion
can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in
quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in
exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different
from the power given to a criminal court for compounding

.

the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power

is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to
be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in
such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to
prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases
power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or

F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have
settled their dispute would depend on the facts and
circumstances of each case and no category can be
prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the
High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity

of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental
depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc.
cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or
victim’s family and the offender have settled the dispute.
Such offences are not private in nature and have serious
impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the

victim and offender in relation to the offences under

special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the
offences committed by public servants while working in
that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for
quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But
the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-
dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the

purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from
commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such
like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony
relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the

wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the
parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category
of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in

its view, because of the compromise between the offender
and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak
and continuation of criminal case would put accused to

great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice
would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case
despite full and complete settlement and compromise with
the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider
whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of
justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or
continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount
to abuse of process of law despite settlement and
compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and
whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that
criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the
above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be

11/01/2019 23:02:45 :::HCHP

– 10 –

well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal
proceeding.” (emphasis supplied)

8. In the light of the above observations of this court in Gian Singh,
we feel that this is a case where the continuation of criminal

.

proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law

because the alleged offences are not heinous offences showing
extreme depravity nor are they against the society. They are
offences of a personal nature and burying them would bring about
peace and amity between the two sides. In the circumstances of
the case, FIR No. 163 dated 26.10.2006 registered under Section

147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 452 and 506 of the IPC at Police Station
Sector 3, Chandigarh and all consequential proceedings arising
there from including the final report presented under Section 173 of
the Code and charges framed by the trial Court are hereby
quashed.

10. Recently Hon’ble Apex Court in its latest judgment dated 4th

October, 2017, titled as Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai

Karmur and others versus State of Gujarat and Another, passed in

Criminal Appeal No.1723 of 2017 arising out of SLP(Crl) No.9549 of 2016,

reiterated the principles/ parameters laid down in Narinder Singh’s case

supra for accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings. It

would be profitable to reproduce para No. 13 to 15 of the judgment

herein:

“13. The same principle was followed in Central Bureau of
Investigation v. Maninder Singh (2016)1 SCC 389 by a bench of two
learned Judges of this Court. In that case, the High Court had, in
the exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 quashed

proceedings under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 read with
Section 120-B of the Penal Code. While allowing the appeal filed
by the Central Bureau of Investigation Mr Justice Dipak Misra (as
the learned Chief Justice then was) observed that the case
involved allegations of forgery of documents to embezzle the
funds of the bank. In such a situation, the fact that the dispute had
been settled with the bank would not justify a recourse to
thepower under Section 482:

“…In economic offences Court must not only keep in view
that money has been paid to the bank which has been
defrauded but also the society at large. It is not a case of
simple assault or a theft of a trivial amount; but the offence
with which we are concerned is well planned and was

11/01/2019 23:02:45 :::HCHP

– 11 –

committed with a deliberate design with an eye of
personal profit regardless of consequence to the society
at large. To quash the proceeding merely on the ground
that the accused has settled the amount with the bank
would be a misplaced sympathy. If the prosecution

.

against the economic offenders are not allowed to

continue, the entire community is aggrieved.”

14. In a subsequent decision in State of Tamil Nadu v R
Vasanthi Stanley (2016) 1 SCC 376, the court rejected the
submission that the first respondent was a woman “who was
following the command of her husband” and had signed certain

documents without being aware of the nature of the fraud which
was being perpetrated on the bank. Rejecting the submission, this
Court held that:

“… Lack of awareness, knowledge or intent is neither to be

considered nor accepted in economic offences. The
submission assiduously presented on gender leaves us
unimpressed. An offence under the criminal law is an
offence and it does not depend upon the gender of an
accused. True it is, there are certain provisions in Code of
Criminal Procedure relating to exercise of jurisdiction Under
r Section 437, etc. therein but that altogether pertains to a

different sphere. A person committing a murder or getting
involved in a financial scam or forgery of documents,
cannot claim discharge or acquittal on the ground of her
gender as that is neither constitutionally nor statutorily a
valid argument. The offence is gender neutral in this case.
We say no more on this score…”

“…A grave criminal offence or serious economic offence
or for that matter the offence that has the potentiality to
create a dent in the financial health of the institutions, is not
to be quashed on the ground that there is delay in trial or

the principle that when the matter has been settled it
should be quashed to avoid the load on the system…”

15.The broad principles which emerge from the precedents

on the subject may be summarized in the following propositions:

(i) Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court
to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure

the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new
powers. It only recognizes and preserves powers which
inhere in the High Court;

(ii) The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to
quash a First Information Report or a criminal
proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been
arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the
same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of
compounding an offence. While compounding an offence,
the power of the court is governed by the provisions of
Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The
power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the
offence is non-compoundable.

11/01/2019 23:02:45 :::HCHP

– 12 –

(iii) In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or
complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction
under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether
the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent
power;

.

(iv) While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide

ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised; (i) to secure the
ends of justice or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of
any court;

(v) The decision as to whether a complaint or First Information
Report should be quashed on the ground that the offender

and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on
the facts and circumstances of each case and no
exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated;

(vi) In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while

dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the
High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity
of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving
mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and
dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim
or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such
r offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but

have a serious impact upon society. The decision to
continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the
overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for
serious offences;

(vii) As distinguished from serious offences, there may be

criminal cases which have an overwhelming or
predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a
distinct footing in so far as the exercise of the inherent
power to quash is concerned;

(viii) Criminal cases involving offences which arise from
commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar

transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in
appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have
settled the dispute;

(ix) In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal
proceeding if in view of the compromise between the
disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and
the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause
oppression and prejudice; and

(x) There is yet an exception to the principle set out in
propositions (viii) and (ix) above. Economic offences
involving the financial and economic well-being of the state
have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere
dispute between private disputants. The High Court
would be justified in declining to quash where the offender

11/01/2019 23:02:45 :::HCHP

– 13 –

is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic
fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act
complained of upon the financial or economic system will
weigh in the balance.

.

11. It is quite apparent from the aforesaid exposition of law that

High Court has inherent power to quash criminal proceedings even in

those cases which are not compoundable, but such power is to be

exercised sparingly and with great caution. In the judgments, referred

hereinabove, Hon’ble Apex Court has categorically held that Court

while exercising inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., must have

due regard to the nature and gravity of offence sought to be

compounded. Hon’ble Apex Court has though held that heinous and

serious offences of mental depravity, murder, rape, dacoity etc.

cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the

victim have settled the dispute, but it has also observed that while

exercising its powers, High Court is to examine as to whether the

possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of

criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and

prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not

quashing the criminal cases. Hon’ble Apex Court has further held that

Court while exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C can also be

swayed by the fact that settlement between the parties is going to result

in harmony between them which may improve their future relationship.

Hon’ble Apex Court in its judgment rendered in State of Tamil Nadu

11/01/2019 23:02:45 :::HCHP

– 14 –

supra, has reiterated that Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the

High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the

ends of justice and has held that the power to quash under Section 482 is

.

attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable. In the aforesaid

judgment Hon’ble Apex Court has held that while forming an opinion

whether a criminal proceedings or complaint should be quashed in

exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate

whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power.

12. Consequently, in view of the averments contained in the

petition as well as the submissions having been made by the learned

counsel for the parties that the matter has been compromised, and

keeping in mind the well settled proposition of law as well as the

compromise being genuine, this Court has no inhibition in accepting the

compromise and quashing the FIR as well as consequent proceedings

arising out of the aforesaid FIR. Accordingly, in view of the discussion made

hereinabove, FIR No.133 of 2014, dated 21.5.2014, registered at P.S. Baddi,

District Solan, H.P., as well as consequent proceedings pending in the Court

of the learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.Pare

ordered to be quashed and set-aside.

13. The present petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.

Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

10th January, 2019 (Sandeep Sharma),
(Manjit) Judge.

11/01/2019 23:02:45 :::HCHP

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation