SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Rajender Kumar vs State Of H.P. And Another on 26 October, 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr. MMO No. 96 of 2018

.
Decided on : 26th October, 2018

_

Rajender Kumar ……Petitioner
Versus

State of H.P. and another …..Respondents

Coram:

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?__
For the petitioner : Ms. Kirti Sood, Advocate vice
r Mr. Keshwa Nand, Advocate

For the respondent No.1 : Mr. Shiv Pal Manhans
Additional Advocate General
with Mr.R.P. Singh and Mr.
R.R.Rahi, Deputy Advocates

General.

For respondent No. 2 : Ms. Parul Sauta, Advocate vice
Mr. Anil Kumar Manget,

Advocate.

Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge (Oral)

This petition has been filed by petitioner-

accused for quashing FIR No. 22 of 2018 and pending

proceedings in criminal case under Section 376 of the

Indian Penal Code, registered with Police Station, Rajgarh,

District Sirmaur, H.P.

29/10/2018 22:56:24 :::HCHP

2. It is stated in petition that petitioner has mutual

relations of love and affection with complainant/respondent

.

No. 2 Sushma Kumari since the last one year and they had

mutually promised to get marry in near future. However,

parents of petitioner and complainant were not aware about

their mutual relations of love and affection and being

ignorant of the said fact, parents of the petitioner had

arranged marriage of petitioner somewhere else in the

family of near relations and petitioner was telephonically

informed about the said arrangement, whereupon the said

fact was disclosed by the petitioner to complainant, which

had resulted altercation and misunderstanding between the

petitioner and complainant and they had become nervous.

Petitioner was in dilemma as he had to take the decision to

fulfill his own promise with complainant and to keep the

promise of family as per traditions and customs of society

and in the meantime, complainant under misunderstanding,

anguish, mental distress and in haste had registered an FIR

against the petitioner on 23.2.2018.

3. After knowing the entire episode, families of

respondent No. 2/complainant as well as of the petitioner

have amicably settled the issue with their free will and

consent without any force or coercion and in the interest of

29/10/2018 22:56:24 :::HCHP
petitioner and complainant and that of family and society at

large and thereafter, petitioner and respondent No. 2 have

.

solemnized their marriage in ancient Shiv Mandir M.D.C.

Panchkula on 12.3.2018. Copy of certificate issued by

Purohit of temple has been placed on record as Annexure P-

3 and photographs of solemnization of marriage have also

been placed on record as Annexure P-4.

4.

It is further stated in petition that petitioner is a

member of Indian Armed Forces and is husband of

complainant/respondent No. 2 w.e.f. 12.3.2018 and he is

facing great hardship for no fault on his part. It is further

stated that respondent No.2/complainant in her statement

under Section 164 (5A) Cr.P.C. recorded on 26.2.2018 before

learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Rajgarh has also stated

that FIR was registered under anger and mental stress and

as she was going to marry petitioner, she was not

interested to continue further legal proceedings against the

petitioner. It is further stated that FIR is outcome of

misunderstanding, anguish, mental distress, immature

relationship and haste and now respondent No.

2/complainant is staying at the home of petitioner with

peace and happiness w.e.f. 25.2.2018.

29/10/2018 22:56:24 :::HCHP

5. In reply filed on behalf of respondent

No.2/complainant, she has admitted the aforesaid contents

.

of petition and she has also prayed for quashing of FIR, as

prayed in petition.

6. In reply filed on behalf of State, it is

categorically stated that during investigation, it has come

on record that petitioner and respondent No.2/complainant

have solemnized the marriage and respondent No. 2 has

refused to continue any action against the petitioner, which

has resulted into preparation of cancellation report in the

present case. It is further stated in reply that by lodging the

FIR, Investigating Agency has performed its duty as an

offence under Section 376 IPC is not a non-compoundable

offence and is not only an offence against the individual but

against the society. However, in the facts and

circumstances of the present case, after conducting

investigation in fair and proper manner, cancellation report

has been prepared.

7. Three Judges Bench of the Apex Court in Gian

Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Ors. 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.PC, has

29/10/2018 22:56:24 :::HCHP
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 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.PC is held to be exercisable for quashing criminal

proceedings in cases having overwhelming and

predominatingly civil flavour particularly offences arising

from commercial, financial, mercantile, 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

29/10/2018 22:56:24 :::HCHP
with on its own merit but it is also clarified that this power

does not extend to crimes against society.

.

8. The Apex Court, in case Narinder Singh and Ors.

Vs. State of Punjab and Ors. (2014) 6 SCC 466, has sum

up and laid down principles, by which the High Court would

be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement

between the parties and exercise its power under Section

proceedings

settlement with direction

482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and

quashing the or

refusing to

continue
accept the

with criminal

proceedings.

9. No doubt Section 376 of IPC is not

compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C. However, as

explained by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh’s and

Narinder Singh’s cases supra, power of High Court

under Section 482 CrPC is not inhibited by the provisions of

Section 320 CrPC and FIR as well as criminal proceedings

can be quashed by exercising inherent powers under

Section 482 CrPC, if 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.

29/10/2018 22:56:24 :::HCHP

10. Offence in question does fall in the category of

offences prohibited for compounding in terms of the

.

pronouncements of the Apex Court by exercising power

under Section 482 of the CrPC. However, in peculiar facts

and circumstances of the case that complainant and

petitioner have married with each other and living as

husband and wife and in view of averments made in

petition, duly endorsed by respondent No.2/complainant in

her reply and also keeping in view the cancellation report

prepared by Investigating Agency, present petition deserves

to be allowed.

11. Keeping in view relation of petitioner and

respondent No. 2/complainant and considering facts and

circumstances of the case in entirety, I am of the opinion

that present petition deserves to be allowed for ends of

justice and the same is allowed accordingly and FIR No.22

of 2018 dated 23.2.2018 registered under Sections 376 IPC

at Police Station, Rajgarh, District Sirmaur, H.P. is quashed.

Petition stands disposed of in above terms.

(Vivek Singh Thakur)
Judge
October 26, 2018(ms)

29/10/2018 22:56:24 :::HCHP

Leave a Reply

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


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

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