- In Ajay Kumar v. the State of Punjab And Others, Justice Sandeep Sharma ruled that the petitioner's offenses were relatively trivial, including neither moral depravity nor a heinous crime. Thus, the Court deemed it reasonable to quash the FIR and the subsequent proceedings, especially given that the two parties have found equitable grounds to settle the matter among themselves by compromising, in which case the prospect of conviction is bleak, and there would be no productive purpose in continuing with the proceedings.
- In the present matter, a case was brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Himachal Pradesh HC requesting the Court to quash the FIR that the wife (Respondent) had lodged against her husband (Petitioner), under Section 498A, Section 354, aligned with Section 34 of the IPC and subsequent procedures. The wife claimed that her husband and other family members frequently tortured her since she brought a small amount of money for a dowry. After the probe, the police brought a challan in the Court, but before it could be pursued, the Respondent indicated that she reached a deal with the petitioner. The Petitioner's attorney argued that allowing the FIR to be dismissed as subsequent procedures pending before the Court if continued, would serve no useful purpose. Based on a settlement between the parties, the Hon'ble HC awarded relief to a husband by quashing the FIR brought against him.
- Section 498(A) addresses the penalty to be delivered if a husband or husband's relatives are proven to be cruel to the wife; they would be imprisoned for three years with a fine.
- Section 354 signifies that if a person assaults or uses criminal force on any woman, intending to outrage or knowing that they are likely to outrage her modesty, a punishment of imprisonment of either description for a term not less than one year, that may extend up to five years, shall be awarded to them. They can also be held liable for a fine.
- Section 34 talks about when a group of people performs a criminal act in furtherance of a common objective, each of them is accountable for that crime in the same way as if he did it alone.
- Section 482 of CrPC deals with preserving the High Court's inherent powers. It states that the HC has inherent powers to make such orders as may be necessary to carry out any order made under this Code to prevent abuse of any Court's process or otherwise secure the ends of justice.
- Section 320 of CrPC prevails to encourage friendly relations between the parties to restore peace. Compounding of Offenses refers to reaching an agreement between two parties in which the complainant agrees to have the accusations against the accused dismissed.
- In State of Rajasthan v. Shambhu Kewat, (2104) 4 SCC 149, it was decided that a crime under Section 307 IPC (Murder attempt) is a severe offense and should not casually be quashed by the HC when exercising its powers under Section 482 CrPC on the grounds that the parties had settled their issues.
- Furthermore, in Narinder Singh v. the State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, the Hon'ble Apex Court invalidated the proceedings under Section 307 IPC, citing the ruling in the State of Rajasthan v. Shambhu Kewat, (2104) 4 SCC 149.
- In another notable case, State of MP v. Laxmi Narayan, (2019) 5 SCC 688, while keeping in mind the conflict of opinion in the above two decisions, it was observed that the powers conferred on the HC under Section 482 CrPC could be exercised while keeping in mind the injuries sustained, inter-alia.
- The Hon'ble Court relied on the SC decision in Narinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab, which held that criminal cases with an overwhelmingly and predominately civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or matrimonial relationship or family disputes, should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire dispute among themselves. It was also decided that when exercising their powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, courts must consider the nature and seriousness of the crime and its societal consequences.
- The Hon'ble Court held that the HC has inherent power to quash criminal proceedings even in non-compoundable cases, but such power is to be exercised with great caution. It also ruled that the possibility of conviction was remote and bleak, and by continuing the proceedings, it would be subjecting the accused to great oppression and prejudice, and extreme injustice would be done to him by not quashing.
- Therefore, the plea for quashing the FIR was accepted by the Hon'ble Apex Court to provide absolute justice.
"Loved reading this piece by Sharmishta?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
