SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sunny Thakur vs State Of H.P. And Others on 13 December, 2019

Cr.MMO No. 689 of 2019
Decided on: 13.12.2019


Sunny Thakur ……Petitioner


State of H.P. and others ……Respondents

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?1
For the petitioner: Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Motta,
For the respondents:
r Mr. Narinder Guleria, Addl. A.G
with Mr. Yudhvir Singh Thakur,

Dy. A.G for respondent No.1.

Ms. Meera Devi, Advocate for
respondents No. 2 and 3.

Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. (Oral)

The present is a case where FIR, Annexure P-1 under

Sections 498-A and Section323 IPC has been registered against the

accused-petitioner Sunny Thakur at the instance of Banarsi Dass,

respondent No.3, who happens to be the father of Promila Devi,

respondent No.2. As a matter of fact, the accused-petitioner had

solemnized marriage with Promila Devi. The marital tie did not

continue for long on account of differences cropped-up amongst

them. They both decided to dissolve the marital tie by a decree

of divorce with mutual consent, however, well before that, FIR

Annexure P-1 was registered against the accused-petitioner in

Police Station, Chintpurni, District Una, H.P. Any how, the

Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

19/12/2019 20:25:18 :::HCHP

complainant-party, respondents No. 2 and 3 herein agreed not to

prosecute the criminal case registered against the accused-


petitioner at their instance any further during the course of

proceedings in the divorce petition. Their marriage now stands

dissolved. Not only the accused-petitioner but respondent No.2

has also got re-married. They as per their statements recorded

separately are living happily with their respective spouses. As

regards, the criminal case, the police on completion of

investigation has prepared the final report and filed the same in

the Court. According to learned Deputy Advocate General, the

matter presently is at the stage of recording prosecution

evidence, which is not yet commenced. It is in these

circumstances, joint prayer has been made by the parties on

both sides for quashing the FIR.

2. It is seen that an offence punishable under

Section 498-A of the Indian Penal code is not compoundable

under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The

apex Court, however, in Gian Singh versus State of Punjab

and another, (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 303 has held

that the High Court in exercise of inherent powers vested

in it under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

may quash FIR/criminal proceedings in a case where the

offence allegedly committed by the accused though is not

compoundable, however, the victim and accused have

19/12/2019 20:25:18 :::HCHP

settled the differences amicably. The powers vested in the

Court, however, should be exercised sparingly and only in


appropriate cases, having arisen out of civil, mercantile,

commercial, financial, partnership or such other transactions of

like nature including matrimonial or the case relating to

dowry etc., in which the wrong basically is done to the

victim. This judgment further reveals that the compounding of

offence in a case of serious nature like rape, dacoity and

corruption etc., having serious impact in the society is not


3. The Apex Court in Narinder Singh and others

versus State of Punjab and another, (2014) 6 Supreme

Court Cases 466 has even quashed the FIR under Section 307

of the Indian Penal Code with the following observations:

“We have gone through the FIR as well which was
recorded on the basis of statement of the

complainant/victim. It gives an indication that the
complainant was attacked allegedly by the accused

persons because of some previous dispute between the
parties, though nature of dispute etc. is not stated in
detail. However, a very pertinent statement appears
on record viz., ‘respectable persons have been trying for
a compromise up till now, which could not be
finalized’. This becomes an important aspect. It appears
that there have been some disputes which led to the
aforesaid purported attack by the accused on the
complainant. In this context when we find that the elders
of the village, including Sarpanch, intervened in the
matter and the parties have not only buried their

19/12/2019 20:25:18 :::HCHP

hatchet but have decided to live peacefully in future,
this becomes an important consideration. The evidence
is yet to be led in the Court. It has not even started. In


view of compromise between parties, there is a

minimal chance of the witnesses coming forward in
support of the prosecution case. Even though nature

of injuries can still be established by producing the
doctor as witness who conducted medical examination,
it may become difficult to prove as to who caused these
injuries. The chances of conviction, therefore, appear to

be remote. It would, therefore, be unnecessary to drag
these proceedings. We, taking all these factors into
consideration cumulatively, are of the opinion that the

compromise between the parties be accepted and the

criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No.121 dated
14.7.2010 registered with Police Station LOPOKE,
District Amritsar Rural be quashed. We order

4. Now, if coming to the case in hand, complainant-

respondent No.3 is no more interested to prosecute the pending

criminal case against the accused-petitioner any further. They

both are present in person. Their statements to this effect have

been recorded separately. The proceedings in the criminal case

against the accused-petitioner are still at its initial stage as only

charge has been framed. In view of the complainant has settled

the dispute with the accused-petitioner amicably he and his

daughter, respondent No.3 are not going to support the

prosecution case while in the witness box. Therefore, even if the

trial is allowed to continue, the chances of conviction of the

accused-petitioner will be very bleak. However, as noticed

19/12/2019 20:25:18 :::HCHP

hereinabove, when in the changed circumstances the

respondent-complainant is not likely to support the prosecution


case, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by

allowing the criminal proceedings against the accused-petitioner

to continue and to allow the same to continue would rather

amounts to abuse of the process of law.

5. The petition as such is allowed. Consequently, FIR

No. 5/14, registered against the accused-petitioner under

Sections 498-A and Section323 IPC dated 14.01.2014, in Police Station,

Chintpurni, District Una and also the consequential criminal

proceedings pending disposal in the Court of learned Additional

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amb, District Una is ordered to be

quashed. The petition is accordingly disposed of.

An authenticated copy of this judgment be sent to

learned trial Court for record/compliance.

(Dharam Chand Chaudhary)

December 13, 2019

19/12/2019 20:25:18 :::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