IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,
SHIMLA.
Cr.MMO No. 224 of 2018.

.
Date of decision: 29.10.2018.

Mayank Kaushal and another …..Petitioners.

Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh. …Respondent.
Coram

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 No
For the Petitioners : Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate.

For the Respondent : Mr.Vinod Thakur and Mr. Sudhir

Bhatnagar, Addl. A.Gs with
Mr.Bhupinder Thakur, Dy. A.G.

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (Oral)

The instant case is rather an unusual one. Petitioner No.1

is the husband, whereas, petitioner No.2 is the wife, who due to some

misunderstanding got FIR No.251/2015 registered against her husband

on 01.08.2015 under Sections 471 and 376 of IPC at Police Station,

Dhalli, District Shimla, H.P.

2. Now, both of them have jointly filed this petition invoking

therein the provisions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure seeking quashing of the aforesaid FIR with all consequential

proceedings. Looking to the nature of the allegations and prayer made
1
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes

30/10/2018 22:56:36 :::HCHP
2

in the petition, the parties were directed to appear before the Court on

29.10.2018.

3. In compliance to the aforesaid directions, both petitioners

.

No.1 and 2 have appeared in person. I have interacted with them and

am convinced that it was only on account of some misunderstanding

that the aforesaid FIR came to be registered.

4. The parties have acknowledged their marriage with each

other and state that recently they have been blessed with a daughter.

5. Thus, the moot question is whether in the given facts and

circumstances of the case the Court should permit the parties to

compound the matter which other is not compoundable.

6. Admittedly, now the petitioners No.1 and 2 have no interse

dispute between them and after getting married to each other are now

blessed with a daughter. Therefore, in such circumstances,

compounding the offence, in my opinion, would enable both the parties

to lead a life of respect and dignity in the society. Once, there is no

dispute between them, then obviously, the law cannot be so harsh and

stand as a wall between the parties, because the law has to secure the

future of the parties and continuation of criminal proceedings, in such

circumstances, would only cause an irreparable harassment and

hardship and may even tarnish and spoil the reputation of the

30/10/2018 22:56:36 :::HCHP
3

petitioners. The court proceedings cannot be permitted to degenerate

into a weapon of harassment and persecution.

7. 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 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.

8. 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

30/10/2018 22:56:36 :::HCHP
4

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).

9. 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….”

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

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

under:-

“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.”

30/10/2018 22:56:36 :::HCHP
5

11. 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.

.

12. 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:-

“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.”

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

complainant (petitioner No.2) is already married with petitioner No.1, as

is otherwise duly proved on record, therefore, there is no possibility of

her supporting the charge in case petitioner No.1 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

30/10/2018 22:56:36 :::HCHP
6

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.

14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present petition is

allowed and accordingly FIR No.251/2015, registered at Police Station,

Dhalli, District Shimla, H.P., on 01.08.2015, under sections 471 and

376 of IPC with all consequential proceedings i.e. Sessions Trial No.30-

S/7 of 2017 titled as ‘State of H.P. versus Mayank Kaushal’ pending in

the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Shimla, is quashed.

13. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.

(Tarlok Singh Chauhan)
Judge

th
29 October, 2018.

(krt)

30/10/2018 22:56:36 :::HCHP