High Court of H.P.IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

CrMMO No. 321 of 2019

Decided on: June 20, 2019

________________________________________________________________

Daljit Singh and another ……...Petitioners

Versus

State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent

________________________________________________________________

Coram

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting

1? Yes.

________________________________________________________________

For the petitioners: Mr. Dheeraj K. Vashisht, Advocate.

For the respondent: Mr. Sanjeev Sood and Mr. Ashwani

Sharma, Additional Advocates General

with Mr. Sunny Dhatwalia, Assistant

Advocate General.

_______________________________________________________________

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

By way of present petition filed under S.482 CrPC,

prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioners, who happen to

be husband-wife, for quashing of FIR No. 11, dated 6.8.2018,

under Ss. 376 and 506 IPC, registered at Women Police Station,

Una, Himachal Pradesh as well as consequential proceedings

pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge -II,

Una, Himachal Pradesh.

2. FIR in question came to be lodged at the behest of

petitioner No.2, Shivani Chauhan on 6.8.2018, who alleged that

Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? .

::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2022 16:38:47 :::CIS

High Court of H.P. - 2 -

on 9.3.2018, petitioner No.1 allured her on the pretext of

marriage and subsequently on 14.3.2018 solemnised marriage

with her at Chandigarh in a Temple. It also emerges from the FIR

that after solemnizing marriage, petitioners filed a joint petition

before Punjab and Haryana High Court, for protection. Punjab

and Haryana High Court disposed of the petition with a direction

to the SSP, Hoshiarpur to ensure safety of lives and liberty of the

petitioners.

3. FIR lodged at the behest of petitioner No.2, further

reveals that she kept on living with petitioner No.1 in her

matrimonial house at Mukerian but since petitioner No.2 went

abroad on 4.4.2018 and certain differences cropped up between

the petitioners, petitioner No.2 lodged the FIR in question,

alleging therein that she was compelled /forced to solemnise

marriage, against her wishes, by petitioner No.1, who after

solemnization of marriage, repeatedly sexually assaulted her

against her wishes. Averments contained in the petition as well

as documents annexed therewith reveal that with the

intervention of the elders of the family, both the petitioners have

now resolved to settle their dispute amicably inter se them and as

such, petitioner No.2, who is complainant, does not wish to

continue with the proceedings initiated at her behest. Though

::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2022 16:38:47 :::CIS

High Court of H.P. - 3 -

perusal of compromise, Annexure P -3, reveals that both the

petitioners have been residing with each other as husband-wife

at Village Nangal Bihala, Tehsil Mukerian, Punjab, i.e.

matrimonial house of petitioner No.2, happily, but this court

solely with a view to ascertain the genuineness and correctness of

the compromise placed on record caused presence of petitioner

No.2 in the court, who has come present alongwith petitioner

No.1 and her father, Shri Ajay Kumar. Petitioner No. 2 on oath

stated before this Court that she, of her own volition, without

there being any external pressure, has entered into compromise.

She further stated that the FIR in question came to be lodged at

her behest on account of some misunderstanding, as such, she,

in terms of agreement arrived inter se parties, intends to

withdraw the FIR. Petitioner No.2 further stated that she shall

have no objection in case FIR No. 11 dated 6.8.2018 as well as

consequential proceedings pending before learned Court below

are ordered to be quashed and set aside. Her statement is taken

on record.

4. Mr. Ashwani Sharma, learned Additional Advocate

General, having heard statement of the petitioner No.2 fairly

stated that in view of amicable settlement arrived inter se parties,

::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2022 16:38:47 :::CIS

High Court of H.P. - 4 -

no fruitful purpose will be served in case FIR lodged at the behest

of petitioner No.2 is allowed to sustain.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the material available on record, especially the contents

of the FIR, this Court has no hesitation to conclude that both the

petitioners prior to lodging of FIR in question had solemnized

marriage and thereafter apprehending threat to their life had

approached Punjab and Haryana High Court by way of a joint

petition, seeking protection.

6. Close scrutiny of FIR itself reveals that petitioner

No.2, who happened to be complainant, after solemnization of

marriage with petitioner No.1, resided at her matrimonial house

for quite considerable time with her husband and when petitioner

No.1 went abroad, petitioner No.2 apprehended that he would not

come back, as such, lodged the FIR. Even averments contained in

the compromise (Annexure P -3) which have been further

substantiated by petitioner No.2, while making statement on oath

before this court, clearly reveal that the parties have settled their

dispute amicably and it appears that they are living happily as

husband-wife.

7. The question which now needs consideration is

whether FIR lodged under S.376 IPC can be ordered to be

::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2022 16:38:47 :::CIS

High Court of H.P. - 5 -

quashed when Hon'ble Apex Cour t in Narinder Singh and

others versus State of Punjab and another (2014)6 SCC 466

has specifically held that power under S. 482 CrPC is not to be

exercised in the cases which involve heinous and serious offences

of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc.

Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious

impact on society.

8. At this stage, it would be relevant take note of the

judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Narinder Singh

(supra), whereby the Hon’ble Apex Court has for mulated

guidelines for accepting the settlement and quashing the

proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to

continue with the criminal proceedings. Perusal of judgment

referred to above clearly depicts that in para 29.1, Hon’ble Apex

Court has returned the findings that power conferred under

Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power

which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section

320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the

High Court has inherent power to quash criminal proceedings

even in those cases which are not compoundable and where the

parties have settled the matter between themselves, however, this

power is to be exercised sparingly and with great caution. Para

Nos. 29 to 29.7 of the judgment are reproduced as under:-

::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2022 16:38:47 :::CIS

High Court of H.P. - 6 -

“29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay

down the following principles by which the High Court would

be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement

between the parties and exercising its power under Section

482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing

the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with

direction to continue with the criminal proceedings:

29.1 Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be

distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to

compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No

doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has

inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in

those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties

have settled the matter between themselves. However, this

power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution.

29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on

that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is

filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:

(i) ends of justice, or

(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court.

While exercising the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C the High

Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two

objectives.

29.3. Such a power is not be exercised in those prosecutions

which involve heinous and serious offences of mental

depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such

offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact

on society. Similarly, for offences alleged to have b een

committed under special statute like the Prevention of

Corruption Act or the offences committed by Public Servants

while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely

on the basis of compromis e between the victim and the

offender.

29.4. On the other, those criminal cases having

overwhelmingly and pre -dominantly civil character,

particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or

arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes

should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire

disputes among themselves.

::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2022 16:38:47 :::CIS

High Court of H.P. - 7 -

29.5. While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine

as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak

and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to

great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be

caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases.

29.6. Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the

category of heinous and serious offences and therefore is to be

generally treated as crime against the society and not against

the individual alone. However, the High Court would not rest

its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307

IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It

would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether

incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or

the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if

proved, would lead to proving the charge under Section 307

IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go

by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is

inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of

weapons used etc. Medical report in respect of injuries

suffered by the victim can generally be the guiding factor. On

the basis of this prima facie analysis, the High Court can

examine as to whether there is a strong possibility of

conviction or the chances of conviction are remote and bleak.

In the former case it can refuse to accept the settlement and

quash the criminal proceedings whereas in the later case it

would be permissible for the High Court to accept the plea

compounding the offence based on complete settlement

between the parties. At this stage, the Court can also be

swayed by the fact that the settlement between the parties is

going to result in harmony between them which may improve

their future relationship.

29.7. While deciding whether to exercise its power under

Section 482 of the Code or not, timings of settlement play a

crucial role. Those cases where the settlement is arrived at

immediately after the alleged commission of offence and the

matter is still under investigation, the High Court may be

liberal in accepting the settlement to quash the criminal

proceedings/investigation. It is because of the reason that at

this stage the investigation is still on and even the charge

sheet has not been filed. Likewise, those cases where the

charge is framed but the evidence is yet to start or the

evidence is still at infancy stage, the High Court can show

benevolence in exercising its powers favourably, but after

prima facie assessment of the circumstances/material

mentioned above. On the other hand, where the prosecution

evidence is almost complete or after the conclusion of the

::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2022 16:38:47 :::CIS

High Court of H.P. - 8 -

evidence the matter is at the stage of argument, normally the

High Court should refrain from exercising its power under

Section 482 of the Code, as in such cases the trial court would

be in a position to decide the case finally on merits and to

come a conclusion as to whether the offence under Section

307 IPC is committed or not. Similarly, in those cases where

the conviction is already recorded by the trial court and the

matter is at the appellate stage before the High Court, mere

compromise between the parties would not be a ground to

accept the same resulting in acquittal of the offender who has

already been convicted by the trial court. Here charge is

proved under Section 307 IPC and conviction is already

recorded of a heinous crime and, therefore, there is no

question of sparing a convict found guilty of such a crime”.

9. Careful perusal of para 29.3 of the judgment suggests

that such a power is not to be exercised in the cases which

involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or

offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not

private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Apart

from this, offences committed under special statute like the

Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by Public

Servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed

merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the

offender. On the other hand, those criminal cases having

overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly

arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of

matrimonial relationship or family disputes may be quashed

when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among

themselves.

::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2022 16:38:47 :::CIS

High Court of H.P. - 9 -

10. In the case at hand, the dispute is more of a family

dispute, which is between husband and wife, due to some

misunderstanding. Petitioner No. 2 (wife) being unde r the

apprehension that her husband, petitioner No.1, who had gone

abroad in connection with work, would not come back, lodged

FIR in question against petitioner No. 1. Otherwise there appears

to be no offence committed by petitioner No. 1 against petitioner

No. 2, who is his wife and as such, neither the offence in

question is of mental depravity nor against the society.

11. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case Gian Singh v. State

of Punjab and anr. (2012) 10 SCC 303 has held that power of

the High Court in quashing of the criminal proceedings or FIR or

complaint in exercise of its inherent power is distinct and

different from the power of a Criminal Court for compounding

offences under Section 320 Cr.PC. Even in the judgment passed

in Narinder Singh’s case, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that

while exercising inherent power of quashment under Section 482

Cr.PC the Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity

of the crime and its social impact and it cautioned the Courts not

to exercise the power for quashing proceedings in heinous and

serious offences of mental depravity, murder, rape, dacoity etc.

However subsequently, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Dimpey Gujral

::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2022 16:38:47 :::CIS

High Court of H.P. - 10 -

and Ors. vs. Union Territory through Administrator, UT,

Chandigarh and Ors . (2013( 11 SCC 497 has also held as

under:-

“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 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

::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2022 16:38:47 :::CIS

High Court of H.P. - 11 -

the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the

parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of

cases, 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 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.”

12. Recently the Hon’ble Apex Court in its latest

judgment dated 4th October, 2017, titled as Parbatbhai Aahir @

Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others versus State of

Gujarat and Another, passed in Criminal Appeal No.1723 of

2017 arising out of SLP(Crl) No.9549 of 2016, reiterated the

principles/ parameters laid down in Narinder Singh’s case supra

for accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings. It

::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2022 16:38:47 :::CIS

High Court of H.P. - 12 -

would be profitable to reproduce para No. 13 to 15 of the

judgment herein:

“13. The same principle was followed in Central Bureau of

Investigation v. Maninder Singh (2016)1 SCC 389 by a bench of

two learned Judges of this Court. In that case, the High Court had,

in the exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 quashed

proceedings under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 read with

Section 120-B of the Penal Code. While allowing the appeal filed by

the Central Bureau of Investigation Mr Justice Dipak Misra (as the

learned Chief Justice then was) observed that the case involved

allegations of forgery of documents to embezzle the funds of the

bank. In such a situation, the fact that the dispute had been

settled with the bank would not justify a recourse to thepower

under Section 482:

“…In economic offences Court must not only keep in view that

money has been paid to the bank which has been defrauded but

also the society at large. It is not a case of simple assault or a

theft of a trivial amount; but the offence with which we are

concerned is well planned and was committed with a deliberate

design with an eye of personal profit regardless of consequence

to the society at large. To quash the proceeding merely on the

ground that the accused has settled the amount with the bank

would be a misplaced sympathy. If the prosecution against the

economic offenders are not allowed to continue, the entire

community is aggrieved."

14. In a subsequent decision in State of Tamil Nadu v R Vasanthi

Stanley (2016) 1 SCC 376, the court rejected the submission that

the first respondent was a woman “who was following the

command of her husband” and had signed certain documents

without being aware of the nature of the fraud which was being

perpetrated on the bank. Rejecting the submission, this Court held

that:

“... Lack of awareness, knowledge or intent is neither to be

considered nor accepted in economic offences. The submission

assiduously presented on gender leaves us unimpressed. An

offence under the criminal law is an offence and it does not

depend upon the gender of an accused. True it is, there are

certain provisions in Code of Criminal Procedure relating to

exercise of jurisdiction Under Section 437, etc. therein but that

altogether pertains to a different sphere. A person committing a

murder or getting involved in a financial scam or forgery of

documents, cannot claim discharge or acquittal on the ground of

her gender as that is neither constitutionally nor statutorily a

valid argument. The offence is gender neutral in this case. We

say no more on this score…”

::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2022 16:38:47 :::CIS

High Court of H.P. - 13 -

“…A grave criminal offence or serious economic offence or for

that matter the offence that has the potentiality to create a dent

in the financial health of the institutions, is not to be quashed

on the ground that there is delay in trial or the principle that

when the matter has been settled it should be quashed to avoid

the load on the system…”

15. The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on

the subject may be summarized in the following propositions:

(i) Section 482 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. The provision does not confer new powers. It only

recognizes and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court;

(ii) The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash

a First Information Report or a criminal proceeding on the

ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the

offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of

jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While

compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by

the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,

1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if

the offence is non-compoundable.

(iii) In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or

complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under

Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of

justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power;

(iv) While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit

and plenitude it has to be exercised; (i) to secure the ends of

justice or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court;

(v) The decision as to whether a complaint or First Information

Report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and

victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts

and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of

principles can be formulated;

vi) In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while

dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High

Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the

offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity

or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot

appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the

victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly

speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon

society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is

founded on the overriding element of public interest in

punishing persons for serious offences;

(vii) As distinguished from serious offences, there may be

criminal cases which have an overw helming or predominant

::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2022 16:38:47 :::CIS

High Court of H.P. - 14 -

element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing in so

far as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned;

(viii) Criminal cases involving offences which arise from

commercial, financial, mercantile, partner ship or similar

transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate

situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the

dispute;

(ix) In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal

proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants,

the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a

criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and

(x) There is yet an exception to the principle set out in

propositions (viii) and (ix) above. Economic offences involving the

financial and economic well-being of the state have implications

which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private

disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to

quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a

financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences

of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system

will weigh in the balance.”

13. Though, in the case at hand, FIR stands registered

against petitioner No.1 under Ss. 376 and 506 IPC but, as has

been noticed herein above, petitioner No.2-complainant is legally

wedded wife of petitioner No.1 and FIR in question came to be

lodged on account of misunderstanding /mis -apprehension, as

such, in very strict terms, it cannot be said that offence, if any,

under S.376 IPC ever came to be committed by petitioner No.1.

Since petitioners are happily married and they have decided to

resolve their dispute amicably, no fruitful purpose would be

served in case proceedings initiated at the behest of the petitioner

No.2 are allowed to continue. Moreover, the complainant has

compromised the matter and she is no longer interested in

carrying on with the criminal proceedings against the accused.

::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2022 16:38:47 :::CIS

High Court of H.P. - 15 -

Otherwise also, possibility of conviction in the case is bleak and

remote, since complainant herself is not interested in carrying on

with the criminal proceedings initiated at her behest.

14. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion as

well as law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court (supra), FIR No.

11, dated 6.8.2018, under Ss. 376 and 506 IPC registered at

Women Police Station, Una, Himachal Pradesh as well as

consequential proceedings pending in the court of learned

Additional Sessions Judge-II, Una, Himachal Pradesh are

quashed and set aside. Petitioner No.1, is acquitted of the

offences levelled against him in the aforesaid FIR.

15. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid

terms, alongwith all pending applications.

(Sandeep Sharma)

Judge

June 20, 2019

(Vikrant)

::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2022 16:38:47 :::CIS