SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Ashutosh Bhatt vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 23 July, 2018

Cr.M.P.(M) No.880 of 2018
Cr.M.P. No. 993 of 2018.

Date of decision: 23.07.2018.

Ashutosh Bhatt …..Petitioner.

State of Himachal Pradesh. …Respondent.

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?1 No
For the Petitioner r : Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala, Advocate.

For the Respondent : Mr.Vinod Thakur and Mr. Sudhir
Bhatnagar, Addl. A.Gs with

Mr.Bhupinder Thakur, Dy. A.G.

Mr.Hitesh Lakhanpal, Dy. S.P.,
Mandi,District Mandi, H.P.

present along with records.

Petitioner along with his father

Shri Anil Kumar Bhatt and
mother Mrs. Asha Bhatt, is

Complainant Usha Kumari
along with her father Brij Lal

and mother Geeta Devi, is

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (Oral)

The instant case is rather an unusual one. The petitioner

and the complainant happen to be the husband and wife, who

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

24/07/2018 23:01:47 :::HCHP

solemnized their marriage at ‘Naina Devi Temple, Rewalsar, Tehsil

Sadar/Balh, District Mandi, H.P.’ on 20th March, 2015. However, due to

some misunderstanding, the wife got registered a case against her


husband, who is the petitioner in this case, under the provisions of

Sections 376, 504 and 506 IPC and Section 3 (i) (W) of the Scheduled

Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

2. Since the parties are husband and wife, therefore, this

Court vide order dated 19.07.2018 directed the complainant and the

petitioner as also their parents to appear before this Court on


3. When the case was taken up today, both the husband and

wife jointly moved an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for

quashing/withdrawal of the FIR No.0042 dated 09.07.2018, registered

at Police Station, Bhuli, District Mandi, H.P. It has been averred that

the complaint had been filed on account of certain misunderstanding

and now the parties have settled the dispute amongst themselves.

4. I have interacted with the parties and their respective

parents and I am convinced that it was only on account of certain

misunderstanding that the aforesaid FIR came to be lodged against the

petitioner at the instance of the complainant-wife. The parents of both

the parties have acknowledged the marriage between the petitioner and

24/07/2018 23:01:47 :::HCHP

the complainant-wife and this would further enable both the parties to

lead a life with respect and dignity in the society.

5. The power to do complete justice is the very essence of every


judicial justice dispensation system. It cannot be diluted by distorted

perceptions and is not a slave to anything, except to the caution and

circumspection, the standards of which the Court sets before it in exercise of

such plenary and unfettered power inherently vested in it while donning the

cloak of compassion to achieve the ends of justice. No embargo, be in the


r to
shape of Section 320(9) if the Cr.P.C. or any other such curtailment, can

whittle down the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

The compromise, in a modern society, is the sine qua non of

harmony and orderly behaviour. It is the soul of justice and if the power under

Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is used to enhance such a compromise which, in

turn, enhances the social amity and reduces friction, then it truly is finest hour

of justice. Disputes which have their genesis in a matrimonial discord,

landlord-tenant matters, commercial transactions and other such matters can

safely be dealt with by the Court by exercising its powers under Section 482

of the Cr.P.C. in the event of a compromise, but this is not to say that the

power is limited to such cases. There can never be any such rigid rule to

prescribe the exercise of such power, especially in the absence of any

premonitions to forecast and predict eventualities which the cause of justice

may throw up during the course of a litigation. (Refer: Kulwinder Singh and

others versus State of Punjab and another 2007 (3) RCR (Crl.) 1052).

24/07/2018 23:01:47 :::HCHP

7. In Mrs.Shakuntala Sawhney versus Mrs. Kaushalya

Sawhney and others, (1980) 1 SCC 63, the Hon’ble Supreme Court

aptly summed up the essence of compromise in the following words:-


“…..The finest hour of justice arrives propitiously when parties,
despite falling apart, bury the hatchet and weave a sense of

fellowship or reunion….”

8. In Madan Mohan Abbot versus State of Punjab, (2008) 4

SCC 582, the Hon’ble Supreme Court emphasized and advised as


“6. We need to emphasise that it is perhaps advisable that in

disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal

nature, the court should ordinarily accept the term of the
compromise even in criminal proceedings as keeping the matter
alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is

a luxury which the courts, grossly overburdened as they are,
cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilized in

deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a
common sense approach to the matter based on ground of

realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law.”

9. Even otherwise, it is more than settled that power under

Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised ex debito justitiae to prevent

abuse of the process of the Court.

10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Madan Mohan Abbot’s

case (supra) while examining the case where quashing of an FIR was

sought under Section 406 IPC being non-compoundable, held that:-

24/07/2018 23:01:47 :::HCHP

“1. No useful purpose would be served in continuing with the
proceedings in the light of the compromise. There was no
possibility of conviction.

2. It is advisable that in the disputes where question involved is


of purely personal nature and no public policy is involved, Court
should ordinarily accept the compromise.

3. Keeping the matter alive with no possibility of conviction is a

luxury which the Courts, grossly overburdened as they are,
cannot afford.”

11. Looking at the case from another angle, since the

complainant is already married with the petitioner, as is otherwise duly

proved on record, therefore, 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 and harassment apart from creating undue

social and psychological pressure over the parties whereby the

complainant-wife would be called in the witness box to depose against

the petitioner-husband and it is but obvious that she would not support

the prosecution. Hence, there is not only remote or bleak but rather no

possibility of the criminal proceedings culminating in the judgment of

conviction. Even if, permitted to proceed with, the continuation of

criminal proceedings may in fact result in marital disharmony which is

not in the interest of the society as also the parties. In fact, in the given

facts and circumstances of the case, the allegations in the FIR itself do

not survive for consideration.

24/07/2018 23:01:47 :::HCHP

12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the application being

Cr.M.P. No.993 of 2018 is allowed and accordingly FIR No.0042 dated

09.07.2018, registered at Police Station, Bhuli, District Mandi, H.P.


under the provisions of Sections 376, 504 and 506 IPC and Section 3(i)

(W) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, 1989, is quashed.

13. In view of the compromise between the parties and

disposal of the application, the petition being Cr.M.P.(M) No.880 of

2018 has become infructuous and is disposed of as such.

14. However, before parting, it would be noticed that marriage

between the parties, though solemnized, has not been registered in

accordance with the Himachal Pradesh Registration of Marriages Act,

1996. The District Registrar/Registrar of Marriages, Mandi, is directed

to register the marriage before 10th August, 2018 by waiving of the

period mentioned in Section 8 of the Himachal Pradesh Registration of

Marriages Act, 1996. The Magistrate of the first class is directed to

order registration of marriage on payment of the prescribed fee as

provided for in sub-section 4 of Section 8 of the Act ibid.

15. For this purpose, the case be listed before this Court on

13th August, 2018.

Copy ‘dasti’.

(Tarlok Singh Chauhan)
July 23, 2018. (krt) Judge

24/07/2018 23:01:47 :::HCHP

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2021 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