Allowed

Neha Sharma @ Shilpneh Prasad Sharma and Ors. v. State Of Chhattisgarh and Anr.

Chhattisgarh HC8 Aug 2016CRMP/638/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 CrPC quashing proceedings against an accused on sufficient grounds of compounding offences between husband and wife after a settlement was reached.

What did the court decide?

The petition was held in favour of the applicants; the underlying case was quashed and the accused were discharged from the charges.

Neha Sharma @ Shilpneh Prasad Sharma and Ors… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Chhattisgarh HC (2016)

¶1

-1-

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO. 638 OF 2016

¶5

Neha Sharma @ Shilpneh Prasad Sharma, W/o Shri Shilesh Sharma, aged about 30 years, R/o Plot No.28, Danav Baba Sainik Society, P.S. Garha District Jabalpur, at present F/7 Nutan Colony, Sarkanda, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶6

Priya Darshi Prasad, S/o Ramesh Chandra, R/o Plot No.28, Danav Baba Sainik Society, P.S. Garha, District Jabalpur, at present address – G- 11 Flat No.1, Chouhan Town, Junwani, Bhilai, P.S. Supela, District Durg (C.G.)

¶7

… Applicants

¶8

Versus

¶9

State of Chhattisgarh, through S.H.O. Chuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.)\

¶10

Shailesh Sharma, S/o Shri J.P. Sharma, at present Address F/7, Nutan Colony, Sarkanda, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶11

… Non-applicants

¶12

For Applicants : Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate. For Non-applicant No.1 : Mr. O.P. Sahu, Dy. Advocate General. For Non-applicant No.2 : Mr. Varun Sharma, Advocate.

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy

¶14

Order on Board

¶15

08/08/2016

¶16

1. The present petition under Section 482 CrPC has been preferred by the Applicants seeking for quashment of the criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No.129 of 2013 pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon.

¶17

2. According to the Counsel for the Applicants, the Non-applicant No.2/Complainant, Shailesh Sharma, who is the husband of Applicant No.1, Neha Sharma, had initially lodged a complaint under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC against the Applicants herein at Police Station, Chuikhadan and subsequently the matter was put to trial before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khairagarh in Criminal Case No. 129 of 2013.

¶18

-2-

¶19

3. As per the Counsel for the Applicants, after registration of the said criminal case, Applicant No.1, Neha Sharma, has moved an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act as well as under Section 125 of CrPC before the Family Court, Jabalpur. The Complainant, Shailesh Sharma, has also moved an application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Family Court, Khairagarh. Meanwhile, Applicant No.1, Neha Sharma, gave birth to a child and it is said that looking to the future of the child the parties is said to have settled their differences and started living together. Pending the dispute between the parties, they have arrived at a compromise and the Non-applicant No.2/Complainant does not intend to prosecute the Applicants any further and had moved an application under Section 320(2) CrPC for permission to compound the offence. On the application under Section 320(2) CrPC, the Court below permitted them to compound the offence under Section 420 IPC and accordingly compounded the offence under Section 420 IPC. However, the Court below refused to compound the offence under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC and ordered for proceeding with the trial for the said offences, leading to filing of the present petition under Section 482 CrPC.

¶20

4. On 24.6.2016, this Court had directed the Non-applicant No.2 to remain present before this Court today with a direction to file a specific affidavit in respect of the averments made in the complaint. 5. In compliance of the aforesaid order, the Non-applicant No.2, Shailesh Sharma, has today filed his affidavit wherein he has categorically stated to have resolved the dispute with Applicants/accused and not to contest the prosecution case any further which has been initiated on his complaint. He has further stated that they have cleared the differences between them and all other cases such as divorce proceedings, maintenance proceedings have already been disposed of on the basis of

¶21

-3-

¶22

compromise arrived at between the parties and they do not want to agitate the present criminal case any further.

¶23

6. Both the Applicants/Accused and Non-applicant No.2/Complainant are also present before this Court along with their respective Counsels. On a query being put to Non-applicant No.2 by this Court, he has categorically stated that the dispute has been resolved amicably between the parties and he does not want to prosecute the Applicants any further and the matter may be closed once and for all.

¶24

7. Learned Counsel for the Applicants submits that Applicant No.1, Neha Sharma is the wife of Non-applicant No.2, Shailesh Sharma and that they have resolved the dispute between them and for the last 2-3 years they are staying together and the in the light of settlement arrived at between the parties they do not intend to contest the prosecution case any further which has been filed on the basis of the complaint of Non-applicant No.2. Counsel for the Applicants further submits that even the charge has not been framed before the Court below and prays that the matter may be closed at this juncture.

¶25

8. Learned Counsel for Non-applicant No.2 submits that he has specific instructions that Non-applicant No.2, Shailesh Sharma, has compromised the dispute between the parties and that he does not want to prosecute the Applicants any further.

¶26

9. Learned Counsel for the State also submits that since the Nonapplicant No.2, Shailesh Sharma, himself does not want to prosecute the Applicants, the State also does not have any objection if the matter is compounded.

¶27

10. Taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case more particularly taking into consideration the fact that both the husband and wife, i.e., Applicant No.1, Neha Sharma and Non-applicant

¶28

-4-

¶29

No.2, Shailesh Sharma, are staying together for last 3 years along with their son and which has been accepted by Applicant No.1, Neha Sharma and Non-applicant No.2- Shailesh Sharma who are present before this Court today, this Court is of the opinion that once when the Complainant and the Accused have settled their matter and buried the dispute and differences, it would be an important consideration for the High Court while exercising the powers under Section 482 CrPC to compound the offence. 11. The opinion of this Court stands fortified from the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Another [2012 (10) SCC 303] and also in the case of Narinder Singh & Others v. State of Punjab & Another [2014 (6) SCC 466]. 12. Another aspect which has to be borne in mind is that the parties to the dispute having entered into a settlement and compromised the matter, there is a minimal chance of the Complainant coming forward in support of the prosecution case and the chances of conviction therefore appear to be very remote and it would not be justified to drag these proceedings unnecessarily knowing fully well the final outcome. 13. In view of the statements made by the Complainant/Non-applicant No.2 and the Accused/Applicant No.1 and keeping in view the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of B. S. Joshi & others v. State of Haryana & Another [2003 (4) SCC 675] and in the case of Gian Singh ( supra ) and Narinder Singh ( supra ), this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case where the parties can be permitted to compound the offence. 14. Accordingly, the petition under Section 482 CrPC is allowed. The consequential proceedings of Criminal Case No.129 of 2013 pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khairagarh stand quashed and the Applicants, namely, Neha Sharma and Priya Darshi Prasad, who

¶30

-5-

¶31

are the accused persons in that case, stand discharged from the offence punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC.

¶32

Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy)

¶33

/sharad/ Judge

Neha Sharma @ Shilpneh Prasad Sharma and Ors. v. State Of Chhattisgarh and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neha Sharma @ Shilpneh Prasad Sharma and Ors. v. State Of Chhattisgarh and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kamar Ali Vs State and Ors.

Hemant Dewangan Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Anr.

Deepak Singh Thakur Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Others

Smt.Vimla Agrahari and Ors. Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Another

Bhoj Singh Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Bureau Of Indian Standards Manak Bhawan Vs M/s Krishna Beverages and Anr.