Date of Judgement:
24th February 2022
Coram/judge:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma
Parties to the Case:
Petitioners -
1. Ajay Kumar S/O Sh. Jagdish Chand
2. Jagdish Chand S/O Shri Buta Ram
3. Jogindera Devi W/O Shri Jagdish Chand
4. Goldi Devi D/O Jagdish Chand
Respondents-
1. Aarti Kumari D/O Shri Ram Singh,
2. State Of Himachal Pradesh
Subject
Through the given petition u/s 482 of CrPC, the petitioners prayed for quashing of FIR No. 30 of 2017 u/s 498(A), 354, read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code(IPC) along with any consequent proceedings pending before the court.
Legal Provisions
- Section 498(A) of IPC,1860- which deals with punishment for cruelty against a woman by husband or his relatives.
- Section 354 of IPC,1860– which lays down punishment for assault or criminal force against a woman with intent to outrage her modesty.
- Section 482 CrPC, 1973- It preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice and therefore the High Court have jurisdiction to quash FIRs.
Overview
- The petitioner no.1 was validly married to respondent no.1 but they decided to live apart on account of certain differences.
- Later on, respondent no.1 filed the FIR in question,wherein she accused her husband and his family members of constant harassment and torture on account of bringing less dowry.
- Investigation was carried and challan was presented in the relevant court of law, but before any further proceedings could start the parties resolved to settle the dispute by way of compromise.
- Respondent no.1 ascertained on oath that she, of her own volition and without there being external pressure,affirm such comprise. This was pursuant to previous order of the high court that directed respondent no.1 to be present in the court and affirm about the correctness of such compromise.
- Further she affirmed that after filing of FIR, she had taken divorce by way of mutual consent. She did not wish to prosecute the case any further and shall have no objection in case FIRs are quashed and the accused acquitted.
- The learned council appearing for the state (respondent no.2), supporting the petition, contended that no fruitful purpose would be served in case FIR and proceedings in question are allowed to sustain. He further added that the chances of conviction of the accused in view of the aforesaid statements by respondent no.1 made on oath, are very remote and bleak.
Issue
Can the FIRs in question be validly quashed under the given circumstances pursuant to powers vested with the High Courts under section 482 of CrPC, 1973?
Judgement Analysis
- The Hon’ble Apex Courtin Narinder Singh and orsv. State of Punjab and anr, had formulated guidelines for accepting compromises and quashing such proceedings or refusing to accept the compromises with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings. The Apex court distinguished such powers from power to compound offences under section 320 of IPC. It was held that the High Court has inherent power to quash theproceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable.
- The guiding factors to form an opinion under such cases would be-
- - The ends of justice or,
- - To prevent abuse of process of any court
- It was held that such a power is not to be exercised in proceedings that involve heinous and serious offences like those of rape, dacoity, murder, etc. as such offences are not of private nature and have serious impact directly on the society. Similarly, for offences alleged to have been committed by Public Servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of settlement between the parties to case.
- In the light of the above and various subsequent cases decided by the honourable Supreme Court, it was clear that the High Court has inherent powers to quash such criminal proceedings but such power was to be exercised sparingly and with great caution.
- While exercising its powers, the High Court examined the possibility of conviction, whether or not continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to prejudice and if compromise between the parties is going to result in harmony.
- The court held that the offences alleged to be committed by the petitioner were petty and did not involve moral turpitude of any serious nature.
- Compromise between the parties and divorce by mutual consent (under section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act) leaves possibility of conviction bleak and further proceedings will only lead to tyranny for the accused. Hence, the present petition was allowed and the FIRs in question were quashed in light of the well-settled proposition of law as well as the compromise being genuine.
Conclusion
The honourable High Court in the present petition reiterated a well-established provision of law embodied in section 482 of CrPC, 1973 while referring to the leading case laws decided under the said provision. The statement of respondent on oath affirmed in honourable High court and the submission of learned council for the state in favour of the petitioner’s prayer further leaned the case in favour of the petitioners. Hence, the petition was allowed and FIR and consequent proceedings stand quashed, while citing the allegations contained therein to be petty in nature.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
