SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Arvind Singh And Another vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 15 October, 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr.MMO No.469 of 2019

Date of decision: 15.10.2019

.

Arvind Singh and another …Petitioners.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent

Coram
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes

For the Petitioners: Mr.Nimish Gupta, Advocate.
Petitioners Arvind Singh and Ms.Poonam
r Kumari are present in person.

For the Respondent: Mr.S.C. Sharma Additional Advocate General.

Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge (oral)

The instant petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure (herein after referred to as ‘SectionCr.PC’) has been filed by petitioners,

for quashing FIR No. 102, dated 29.04.2018 registered at P.S. Sadar

Chamba, District Chamba, under Sections 376 and Section506 of the Indian Penal

Code (herein after referred to as ‘SectionIPC’) and criminal proceedings initiated in

pursuance thereto.

2. Today petitioner No.1 Arvind Singh and petitioner No.2 Smt.

Poonam Kumari, present in person, have been identified by Mr. Nimish

Gupta, Advocate and their statements have been recorded on oath.

3. Petitioner No.2 Smt.Poonam Kumari, in her statement, has

deposed that she is complainant in present case and petitioner No.1 Arvind

Singh is her husband. She has stated that on 29.4.2019 she had lodged FIR

1
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes

16/10/2019 20:24:21 :::HCHP
2

against Arvind Singh in P.S.Sadar Chamba after delivery of male child. She

has also deposed that at that time, she was pursuing her course of

Draftsman in Jeevan Lakshay ITI, Chamba and during that period, she had

.

come in contact of petitioner No.1 Arvind during Minjar fair and thereafter,

they had developed intimacy. She has further stated that he had assured her

to marry and had developed physical relations with her, whereupon she

conceived a child and when she contacted Arvind Singh and disclosed about

this, he advised her to abort the child and not to contact him on telephone

and on 29th April, 2018 she had delivered a male child in Government

Hospital, Chamba and thereafter she lodged FIR against petitioner No.1

Arvind Singh.

4 It is also stated by Smt. Poonam Kumari that later on, on 11th

May, 2018, petitioner No.1 Arvind Singh came to hospital and took her and

their child to his parental house in village Vadei and explained that earlier his

parents were not agreeing to marry him with her, however later on, he had

succeeded to persuade them to accept their relations and to accept her as

their daughter-in-law and thereafter petitioner No.1 had come to Chamba to

take her to home. She has also stated that the FIR is a result of

misunderstanding caused on account of disagreement of parents of

petitioner No.1 to accept their relations.

5 Petitioner No.2/complainant has further stated that parents of

petitioner No.1 Arvind Singh had contacted her parents and their parents

have agreed to marry them with each other and ultimately, on 14 th October,

2018 her marriage was solemnized with petitioner No.1 Arvind Singh in his

village Vadei and she has also been recorded in the Parivar Register of

16/10/2019 20:24:21 :::HCHP
3

concerned Panchayat as wife of petitioner No1 Arvind Singh and their son

Shivansh has also been recorded in Parivar Register of Panchyat as their

son. It is also stated by her that she stayed in the house of petitioner No.1

.

since May, 2018 till solemnization of their marriage in October, 2018 along

with their child and after solemnization also, she is residing in her

matrimonial home happily and satisfactorily and petitioner No.1 Arvind Singh

as well as his parents are behaving with her properly and they are living

jointly under one roof along with their son and parents of petitioner No.1

Arvind Singh and family of petitioner No.1 is maintaining her and their child

properly as per their resources and further stated that now in case, the

proceedings are continued against petitioner No.1, it will cause harm not

only to her but also to future of their son Shivan Dharmani as she would be

constrained to lead evidence against her own husband in a case which is a

result of misunderstanding and now stands resolved. It is also stated by her

that continuation of the said case would result into breaking of their family,

therefore, she does not intend to pursue the case against petitioner No.1

and thus have agreed to file present petition for quashing of FIR and

criminal proceeding initiated in pursuance thereto. She has also stated that

she has deposed in Court out of her free will, consent and also without any

fear, threat, pressure or coercion.

6. Petitioner No. 1 Arvind Singh in his statement, has deposed

that he has heard statement of complainant Smt. Poonam Kumari, who is

now his wife after solemnization of their marriage on 14.10.2018. He has

stated that it is true that he had assured complainant/petitioner No.2 to

marry her and thereafter, they had developed physical relations, on account

16/10/2019 20:24:21 :::HCHP
4

of which complainant/petitioner No.2 had conceived and has delivered a

male child in Government Hospital, Chamba. He has stated that he had

developed intimacy with petitioner No.2 without taking his parents in

.

confidence with an intention to marry her, but his parents had refused to

accept their relations and at that time, he being unemployed and dependent

was under pressure from his parents who had not accepted their relations

and that he had no intention to cheat or deceive the complainant, but

because of pressure of his parents, he could not come to her, which led to

lodging of FIR against him, however, later on he had succeeded in

persuading his parents and with their consent, in May, 2018, he brought the

complainant along with their child from Government Hospital to his native

place i.e. village Vadei and thereafter he is keeping complainant and their

child in his village in their parental house and later on, his parents had

contacted the parents of complainant and thereafter with agreement of both

sides, their marriage was solemnized on 14.10.2018.

7 It is also stated by petitioner No.1/accused that

complainant/petitioner No.2 has been entered in Parivar Register as his wife

and their son Shivansh Dharmani has also been entered in said Register as

their son and the FIR is a result of misunderstanding caused on account of

disagreement of his parents to accept the relations. He has stated that as

his parents were not agreeing for accepting their relations, petitioner No.2

Poonam had felt that he was cheating her, whereas, he had no such

intention at any point of time, but as he had no source of income, he was

under pressure of his parents and as of now also, he is maintaining his

16/10/2019 20:24:21 :::HCHP
5

family by doing labour work casually here and there as and when available

in or around our village.

8 Petitioner No.1/accused has further stated that now they are

.

living under one roof and his parents have accepted petitioner

No.2/complainant as their daughter-in-law and have also accepted their

grandson Shivansh and he, on his behalf and on behalf of his parents,

undertakes to take care of his wife i.e. petitioner No.2 Poonam and their son

Shivansh to the best of their resources and to keep and maintain her

properly in all respects and not to harm her in any manner. He has stated

that he has deposed in Court out of his free will,consent and also without

any fear, threat, pressure or coercion.

9. Considering peculiar facts and circumstances of present case,

petition has been opposed on behalf of respondent-State on the ground that

it is not maintainable as in investigation a case under Section 376 IPC is

made out and on the basis of challan presented in Court trial is pending

consideration of Court. It is also contended on behalf of respondent/State

that petitioner No.1 has committed an act, lowering the dignity of a woman in

the society and there are chances of pressurizing the complainant by him to

escape punishment and therefore, he is not entitled to invoke inherent

jurisdiction of this Court to exercise its power, keeping in view the nature of

crime, for quashing of FIR with respect to an offence heinous in nature and

not compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C.

10 It is a case of peculiar nature where complainant/petitioner

No.2 and accused/petitioner No.1 are now residing under one and same

roof as husband and wife. In fact it appears from their statements, recorded

16/10/2019 20:24:21 :::HCHP
6

on oath, that petitioner No.1, without taking into confidence his parents, had

developed intimacy with petitioner No.2 with intention to marry her, which

has led to physical relations with each other, however, thereafter, on

.

consultation, mother of petitioner No.1 had refused to accept this relation

which was communicated by petitioner No.1 to petitioner No.2 whereupon,

and rightly so, petitioner No.2 had gathered impression that petitioner No.1

was not inclined to marry her and had developed physical relations with her

in deceitful manner and had cheated her and, consequently, it had resulted

into registration of FIR against petitioner No.1. However, thereafter, on

removal of misunderstanding and acceptance of relations by mother of

petitioner No.1, they (petitioners No. 1 and 2) have solemnized marriage on

14th October, 2018 in village Vadei in accordance with Hindu rites and rituals

and now petitioner No.2 along with her child is residing with in-laws along

with her husband/petitioner No.1 and has prayed for quashing of FIR and

criminal proceedings pending against her husband for

betterment of her life as well as welfare of their child, her husband and in-

laws.

11. It is apt to record herein that a 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.P.C., 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

16/10/2019 20:24:21 :::HCHP
7

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.P.C. is held

to be exercisable for quashing criminal proceedings in cases having

overwhelming and predominatingly civil flavour particularly offences arising

from commercial, financial, mercantile,
r 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.

12 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.

13. The Apex Court in case Narinder Singh and Ors. 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

16/10/2019 20:24:21 :::HCHP
8

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.

.

14. No doubt Section 376 IPC is not compoundable under Section

320 Cr. P.C. However, as explained by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gian

Singh’s, Narinder Singh’s Parbatbhai’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 Cr.P.C. and FIR as well as criminal proceedings

can be quashed by exercising inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.PC, if it

is 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.

15. In present case, petitioner No.2/complainant also appeared in

person in this Court and her statement, as discussed in para 3 to 5 supra,

has also been recorded in this Court, wherein she has expressed her desire

to close the proceedings against the petitioner.

16. It is true that as a matter of principle, quashing of FIR on the

basis of compromise should not be permitted in case of heinous crime like

Section 376 IPC for the reason that said crime is against the society having

adverse impact on it and also that possibility of compromise under any kind

of pressure, threat or coercion cannot be ruled out in such cases as victims

normally belong to the weaker class. But in given facts and circumstances

of the present case, where offence of rape is considered to be made out

because of the fact that a young girl, apprehending cheating has lodged FIR

16/10/2019 20:24:21 :::HCHP
9

and now residing in her matrimonial house with petitioner-accused, it cannot

be compared with other cases. It is not a case where quashing of FIR has

been prayed on the basis of compromise.

.

17. Observation of the 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.

18. In present case also, deposition of victim in the Court in

consonance with prosecution case would lead to landing her husband in jail

and pushing her in pitch dark whereas retracting from her earlier version

may put her in unnecessary trouble. In view of statement of complainant,

recorded on oath today, wherein she has stated that lodging of FIR was

based on misunderstanding, doubtful possibility of conviction is another

issue.

19. 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 SectionAsha Devi others vs. State of Himachal

Pradesh another; Cr.MMO No. 399 of 2018, decided on 18.09.2018, titled

16/10/2019 20:24:21 :::HCHP
1

as SectionKajal 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

.

SectionSahil Chaudhary vs. State of H.P. and another, Cr.MMO No. 464 of 2018

decided on 9.8.2019 titled as SectionShri Devi vs. State of H.P. and another,

Cr.MMO No. 377 of 2019 decided on 27.8.2019 titled as SectionShishpal vs. State

of H.P. and another and Cr.MMO No. 41 of 2019 decided on 24.9.2019 titled

as SectionRavi 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.

20. The ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court on the issue of

permitting the compromise and quashing of FIR in all 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

apprehended cheating 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

16/10/2019 20:24:21 :::HCHP
1

sexual intercourse was consensual 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.

21 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.

22 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.

23. SectionIn 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.

16/10/2019 20:24:21 :::HCHP
1

24. Therefore, in peculiar facts and circumstances of the present

case, I am of the considered opinion that interest of justice shall be served in

quashing the FIR as well as criminal proceedings pending against petitioner-

.

accused.

25. Keeping in view the ratio of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex

Court and considering peculiar facts and circumstances of the case in its

entirety, present petition is allowed and matter is permitted to be

compounded. Consequently, FIR No. 102 of 2018, dated 29.04.2018

registered at P.S. Sadar Chamba, District Chamba (H.P.) is quashed.

Consequent to quashing of FIR, criminal proceedings, pending in the

concerned Court also stand quashed.

26. Petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so also

pending applications, if any.

(Vivek Singh Thakur),
th
15 October, 2019 Judge.

(ms)

16/10/2019 20:24:21 :::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