IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,
SHIMLA

.

Cr.MMO No. 534 of 2018.

Date of decision: 19.12.2018.

Rishi Yadav …..Petitioner.

Versus

State of Himachal Pradesh and another ….. Respondents.

Coram

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

Whether approved for reporting?1 No
For the Petitioner : Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate.

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

Bhatnagar, Addl. A.Gs., with Mr.
Bhupinder Thakur and Ms.
Svaneel Jaswal, Dy. A.Gs., for
respondent No.1.

Mr. Varun Chauhan, Advocate, for

respondent No.2.

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (Oral).

The parties are present in person and have been

identified as such by their respective counsel(s).

2. The petitioner and respondent No.2, were married

on 2.4.2002 in accordance with Hindu Rites and Customs. One

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

21/12/2018 22:55:50 :::HCHP
2

male child Master Vijay Singh was born out of the wedlock on

6.7.2003.

.

3. Married life of the petitioner with respondent No.2

incidentally got disturbed due to some misunderstanding and

both of them started residing separately since 26.4.2014. On

account of such misunderstandings, respondent No.2 lodged a

complaint against the petitioner which culminated in FIR No.

118/14 and case No.23-S/7 of 2016 pending trial before

learned Additional Sessions Judge(1), Shimla.

4. Now, the petitioner and respondent No.2 have

amicably settled all their past disputes and have filed a

petition under Section 13 (B) of the Hindu Marriage Act for

divorce by mutual consent before the learned District Judge,

Panchkula, Haryana. The said petition is pending as Case No.

252 of 2018 and next date is fixed as 25.1.2019 for second

motion. The said petition has been filed by the petitioner and

respondent No.2 after having arrived at terms and conditions

of settlement, which have been incorporated in the body of the

said petition and a copy of the said settlement is annexed as

Annexure P-1 with this petition. As per the said settlement, the

petitioner has agreed to pay a sum of Rs.65.00 lakh to

respondent No.2 in lieu of permanent alimony , maintenance,

21/12/2018 22:55:50 :::HCHP
3

damages and compensation etc. out of which, a sum of

Rs.32.50 lack have already been paid. In the said settlement,

.

respondent No.2 has agreed to either take steps for withdrawal

of prosecution of petition from the above mentioned case or to

make statement before the Court of law so as to bring an end

to said litigation.

5. The petitioner has complied with the terms and

conditions of above settlement which he was required to

perform till date and he is further ready and willing to perform

remaining part of his obligation under the said settlement in

future.

6. Now, the moot question is whether the FIR can be

quashed when the complainant is not interested to pursue the

same as they have compromised all the matters ?

7. This question is no longer res integra in view of the

judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dimpey Gujral,

W/o Vivek Gujral and others versus Union Territory

through Administrator, UT, Chandigarh and others

(2013) 11 SCC 497, where the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a

case seeking quashment of FIR and its consequential

proceedings involving Sections 147, 148, 149 and 323 IPC after

21/12/2018 22:55:50 :::HCHP
4

relying upon the judgment of Gian Singh versus State of

Punjab and another (2012) 10 SCC 303, held as follows:-

.

“7. In certain decisions of this court in view of the
settlement arrived at by the parties, this court quashed

the FIRs though some of the offences were non-
compoundable. A two Judges’ Bench of this court doubted
the correctness of those decisions. Learned Judges felt
that in those decisions, this court had permitted

compounding of non-compoundable offences. The said
issue was, therefore, referred to a larger bench.

The larger Bench in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012)

10 SCC 303 considered the relevant provisions of the
Code and the judgments of this court and concluded as
under: (SCC pp.342-43, para 61)

“61. The position that emerges from the above
discussion can be summarised thus: the power of
the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or

FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent

jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power
given to a criminal court for compounding the
offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent

power is of wide plenitude with no statutory
limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with
the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to
secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse
of the process of any Court. In what cases power to
quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R
may be exercised where the offender and victim
have settled their dispute would depend on the
facts and circumstances of each case and no
category can be prescribed. However, before

21/12/2018 22:55:50 :::HCHP
5

exercise of such power, the High Court must have
due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime.

.

Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity

or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot
be fittingly quashed even though the victim or
victim’s family and the offender have settled the

dispute. Such offences are not private in nature
and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any
compromise between the victim and offender in

relation to the offences under special statutes like
Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences
committed by public servants while working in that
capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for

quashing criminal proceedings involving such

offences. But the criminal cases having
overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour
stand on different footing for the purposes of

quashing, particularly the offences arising from
commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership
or such like transactions or the offences arising out

of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family
disputes where the wrong is basically private or

personal in nature and the parties have resolved
their entire dispute. In this category of cases, the

High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its
view, because of the compromise between the
offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is
remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case
would put accused to great oppression and
prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to
him by not quashing the criminal case despite full
and complete settlement and compromise with the
victim. In other words, the High Court must
consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to

21/12/2018 22:55:50 :::HCHP
6

the interest of justice to continue with the criminal
proceeding or continuation of the criminal

.

proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process

of law despite settlement and compromise
between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to
secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that

criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to
the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High
Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash

the criminal proceeding.”

(emphasis supplied)

8. In the light of the above observations of this court in

Gian Singh, we feel that this is a case where the

continuation of criminal proceedings would tantamount to
abuse of process of law because the alleged offences are
not heinous offences showing extreme depravity nor are
they against the society. They are offences of a personal

nature and burying them would bring about peace and
amity between the two sides. In the circumstances of the

case, FIR No.163 dated 26/10/2006 registered under
Section 147, 148,149, 323, 307, 452 and 506 of the IPC at

Police Station Sector 3,Chandigarh and all consequential
proceedings arising there from including the final report

presented under Section 173 of the Code and charges
framed by the trial court are hereby quashed.”

8. On the basis of the aforesaid exposition of law, this

Court is of the opinion that this is a case where the

continuation of the criminal proceedings would tantamount to

abuse of process of law because the alleged offences are not

heinous offences showing extreme depravity nor are they

21/12/2018 22:55:50 :::HCHP
7

strictly against the society. They are offences of personal

nature and quashing the proceedings would bring about peace

.

and amity between two sides.

9. In these circumstances, FIR No. 118 of 2014 dated

13.8.2014, registered at Police Station, Dhalli, District Shimla,

under Sections 307 and 427 IPC and all consequential

proceedings arising therefrom, which was registered at the

instance of respondent No.2 against the petitioner, are

quashed including the proceedings in case No.23-S/7 of 2016

pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (1), Shimla

are also quashed.

10. The petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms, so

also the pending application(s), if any.

Copy dasti.

19th December, 2018. (Tarlok Singh Chauhan),
(GR) Judge

21/12/2018 22:55:50 :::HCHP