SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Ravi Goyal And Another vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Others on 24 September, 2019


Cr.MMO No.41 of 2019

Date of decision: 24.09.2019


Ravi Goyal and another …Petitioners.
State of Himachal Pradesh others …Respondents

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

For the Petitioners: Mr.P.P. Chauhan, Advocate.
Petitioners Ravi Goyal and Vinita Phutela Goel
r are present in person.

For the Respondents: 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. 205, dated 31.7.2018 registered at P.S. Pinjore, District

Panchkula, Haryana, which was transferred to Women Police Station, Baddi,

where it was converted into case FIR No. 28 of 2018 dated 1.8.2018, under

Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (herein after referred to as ‘SectionIPC’) and

criminal proceedings initiated in pursuance thereto.

2. Today petitioner No.1 Ravi Goyal and petitioner No.2 Smt.

Vinita Phutela Goyal, present in person, have been identified by Mr. P.P.

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

3. Petitioner No.1 in his statement deposed that his father has

expired and he is living with his mother and unmarried sister, whereas his

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

27/09/2019 20:25:07 :::HCHP

another sister has been married and he is only son of his parents. He has

stated that he is serving in Pharmaceutical Company i.e. Legency Remedies

Pvt. Ltd and petitioner No. 2 is also serving in Pharmaceutical Company i.e.


Scott-Edil Pharmacia Baddi. He has further stated that in March, 2018 he

and Vinita were deputed by their respective companies to attend a meeting

at Chandigarh related to audit of companies and during that meeting, they

had introduction with each other and thereafter, they kept on meeting and

intimacy developed between them and finally they decided to marry each

other and thereafter they had also developed physical relations, but, later on

in July, 2018 his mother had refused to accept their relations and marriage

and the said fact was communicated by him to Vinita, which created

misunderstanding that he is not inclined to marry her and resulted in lodging

of FIR No. 205 dated 31.7.2018 in P.S. Pinjore, District Panchkula (Haryana)

which was transferred to Women Police Station, Baddi, where it was

converted into case FIR No. 28 of 2018 dated 1.8.2018 under Section 376

IPC. He has also stated that after registration of FIR, he again met petitioner

No.2 Vinita and clarified the situation that it was his mother who was not

ready to accept the relations, but it did not mean that he was not keen to

keep his promise to marry petitioner No.2, but at that time, investigation

was in progress and by the time, he and petitioner No.2 married each other

on 12th October, 2018 in Shiv Mandir, Parsuram Bhawan, Lower Karari,

Kalka and challan had been presented in Court on completion of

investigation. It is also stated by petitioner No.1 that he has married

petitioner No.2 with his free will, consent and without any pressure, coercion

or threat as it was his own decision to marry her and he never intended to

27/09/2019 20:25:07 :::HCHP

violate her person with criminal intent or to cheat her but in good faith with

commitment to marry her and now, after solemnization of marriage on 12th

October, 2018, they are residing under one and same roof along with his


mother and one unmarried sister and his second sister, who is married, has

also accepted their marriage and he is keen and duty bound and also

intend to maintain petitioner No.2 and keep her happy and to provide her all

amenities of life and further clarified that now misunderstanding between

them stands removed and petitioner No.2, who is his wife, has no complaint

against him and on this she also does not want to continue with criminal

proceedings pending against him before the trial Court on the basis of FIR

lodged by her. He has also stated that he has deposed in Court out of his

free will and consent and also without any fear, threat, pressure or coercion.

4. Petitioner No. 2 Vinita Phutela Goyal in her statement, has

deposed that she is also serving in Pharmaceutical Company i.e. Scott-Edil

Pharmacia Baddi and petitioner No.1 Ravi Goyal is her husband. She has

endorsed the statement of petitioner No. 1 to be true and correct. She has

stated that in July 2018, after developing intimate relations with her, when

Ravi Goyal (petitioner No.1) had intimated her that their relations are not

acceptable to his mother and she was not agreeing for their marriage, she

gathered the impression that Ravi Goyal is not keen to keep his words and

was trying to deceit her, whereupon, she had immediately lodged the FIR,

as referred in statement of petitioner No.1. She has further stated that later

on, petitioner No.1 not only assured her that he was ready and willing to

marry her, but has also solemnized marriage on 12 th October, 2018 after

getting the consent of his mother and now, after marriage, she is residing

27/09/2019 20:25:07 :::HCHP

with petitioner No.1 as his wife along with his mother and unmarried sister

and therefore, she feels that her impression that he is cheating her, was

wrong and further stated that continuation of criminal proceedings will


definitely create an awkward situation for her when she would be deposing

against her husband, which would definitely have adverse impact on their

matrimonial life and continuation of criminal proceedings will not only harm

petitioner No.1 but also her life and in these aforesaid circumstances, she is

praying for compounding of case and closing the criminal proceedings after

quashing FIR and also stated that she is interested for quashing of FIR and

criminal proceedings pending against her husband for betterment of her life

as well as welfare of her husband and her in-laws. She has also stated that

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

external pressure, coercion or threat of any kind.

5. Considering peculiar facts and circumstances of present case,

petition has been opposed on behalf of respondent No. 1-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 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.

6 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

27/09/2019 20:25:07 :::HCHP

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

12th October, 2018 in Shiv Mandir, Parsuram Bhawan, Lower Karari, Kalka in

accordance with Hindu rites and rituals and now petitioner No.2 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 her husband and in-laws.

7. 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

dispute and for that purpose no definite category of offence can be

27/09/2019 20:25:07 :::HCHP

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, 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.

9 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.

10. 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

and exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the

27/09/2019 20:25:07 :::HCHP

settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the

settlement with direction to continue with criminal proceedings.

11. 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 and Narinder Singh’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.

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

person in this Court and her statement, as discussed in para 4 supra, has

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

close the proceedings against the petitioner.

13. 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 made out because of the fact

that a young girl, apprehending cheating has lodged FIR and now again

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

compared with other cases.

27/09/2019 20:25:07 :::HCHP

14. 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.

15. 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.

16. 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

as SectionKajal another vs. State of Himachal Pradesh another; and Cr.MMO

No. 244 of 2019, decided on 07.05.2019 titled as X vs. State of H.P.

others and Criminal Miscellaneous (Main) No. 139 of 2018, decided on

26.5.2018, titled SectionSahil Chaudhary vs. State of H.P. and another wherein

FIRs registered under Section 376 IPC read with provisions of POCSO Act

27/09/2019 20:25:07 :::HCHP

have been quashed in similar circumstances where victims and accused

had married to each other.

17. 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 is 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 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. 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.

27/09/2019 20:25:07 :::HCHP

Considering entire facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion,

balance lies in favour of the prayer of the victim.

18 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.

19. 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.

20. 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-


21. 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. 205 of 2018, dated 31.7.2018

registered at P.S. Pinjore, District Panchkula, Haryana, which was

27/09/2019 20:25:07 :::HCHP

transferred to Women P.S. Baddi, where it was converted into case FIR No.

28 of 2018 dated 1.8.2018 is quashed. Consequent to quashing of FIR,

criminal proceedings, pending in the concerned Court also stand quashed.


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

pending applications, if any.

(Vivek Singh Thakur),
24 September, 2019 Judge.


27/09/2019 20:25:07 :::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