Petition for quashing an FIR under Sections 406, 498A, 34 IPC. Parties settled via divorce by mutual consent, respondent received maintenance and withdrew domestic violence complaint. High Court saw quashing as fit in interest of justice.
FIR No.132 of 2009 and case No.228/2 of 2010 quashed; connected Cr.M.P. No.697 of 2011 disposed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,SHIMLA. Cr.MMO No. 172 of 2011. Judgment reserved No.6.12.2011. Date of decision: 26.12.2011
1. Dr. Robinder Singh S/o Sh. Gajendra Singh, R/o House No.3429, Section 71 Mohali (Punjab)
2. Sh. Gajendra Singh S/o Sh. Sardar Kartar Singh, House No.3429, Section 71 Mohali (Punjab).
3. Smt. Jaspal Kaur D/o Sh. Gajendra Singh, House No.3429, Section 71 Mohali (Punjab)
….Petitioners
Vs.
1. State of Himachal Pradesh through Secretary ( Home) to the Government of H.P. Secretariat, Shimla-171002.
2. Police Station Incharge, Police Station, Baddi, District Solan, H.P.
3. Smt. Harman Jit Kaur W/0 Dr. Robinder Singh and D/o Sh. Manmohan Singh,
…Respondents.
Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Articles 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing and setting aside the FIR No.132 of 2009, dated 11.9.2009 lodged under Sections 406, 498A, 34 IPC at Police Station, Baddi, Solan, H.P. against the petitioners No. 1 to 3 by respondent No.3.
Coram
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? No
For the Petitioners : Mr.Rahul Mahajan, Advocate. For the Respondents : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. Advocate General with Mr. J.S.Rana, Asstt. Advocate General, for respondents No.1 and 2.
Mr. Bhupinder Singh Sudan, Advocate, for respondent No.3.
Kuldip Singh, J
This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with
Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing FIR No.132 of
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes
2009 dated 11.9.2009, registered at Police Station, Baddi under Sections 406, 498A, 34 IPC and case No.228/2 of 2010 titled as State vs. Robinder Singh arising out of said FIR No.132 of 2009 and pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Nalagarh..
12 lacs on the marriage of respondent No.3 and more than 2 lacs on the ring ceremony.parents of respondent No.3 for purchasing a house at Mohali. The petitioner No.1 forcibly took amount from respondent No.3 through cheques. The petitioners wanted a house loan from H.D.F.C. Bank, a joint loan account was got opened in the name of petitioner No.1 and respondent No.3 and both of them jointly owned a house No.3429, Sector 71 in Mohali.
11.9.2009. On 7.9.2010, the High Court gave directions to the learned Magistrate to first determine whether any cause of action arose within the jurisdiction in accordance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court. The challan has been submitted in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Nalagarh, who on 26.8.2011 has decided that cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of Baddi.
18 lacs shall be paid to respondent No.3 and minor child Taranjeet alias Aman on account of past, present and future maintenance and in respect of dowry articles, ornaments to respondent No.3. The respondent No.3 had made a statement in the petition under Section 13B of the Act that an amount of 8 lacs has already been paid by petitioner No.1 to respondent No.3. The case is now fixed on 28.1.2012. On these facts, prayer has been made for quashing of the FIR No.132 of 2009 dated 11.9.2009, registered at Police Station, Baddi under Sections 406, 498A, 34 IPC and case No.228/2 of 2010 titled as State vs. Robinder Singh.10 lacs to him for further handing over to respondent No.3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3 had stated that respondent No.3 would appear in the Court on the next date of hearing and prayed adjournment. On 29.11.2011, respondent No.3 appeared in person alongwith her counsel Mr.Bhupinder Singh Sudan, Advocate. The respondent No.3 filed an affidavit dated 29.11.2011 stating therein that she had received drafts amounting to 5 lacs, 4 lacs, 1 lac, total amounting to ` 10 lacs on behalf of her minor son Taranjeet Singh. She has stated that she has no objection in case FIR No.132 dated 11.9.2009 under Sections, 406, 498-A, 34 IPC, registered at Police Station, Baddi is quashed. The case was taken on 6.12.2011and on that date Mr. Bhupinder Singh Sudan, Advocate, learned counsel for respondent No.3 has again stated that respondent No.3 has no objection in case FIR No.132 dated 11.9.2009 under Sections, 406, 498-A, 34 IPC, registered at Police Station, Baddi is quashed.
“7. It is true that an offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code is not compoundable and within the framework of the Code, Court has no power and authority to grant permission to compound an offence which is not compoundable. However, quashing of the proceedings, as prayed for in the present petition, is not granting permission to compound an offence which is not compoundable. The powers to quash proceedings under Section 482 of the Code stands entirely on a different footing and the provisions of Section 320 of the code, in no way, affect such powers.
the Code. However, these powers can be exercised within the framework of the Section i.e. to give effect to any order under the Code or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or to secure the ends of justice and exercise of such power with a view to achieve the aforesaid objectives is independent of the powers of the Courts under Section 320 of the Code”
Mr. Bhupinder Singh Sudan, Advocate. On that date she had stated that she had received three drafts in all amounting to 10 lacs on behalf of her minor son Taranjeet Singh. It has been stated by the petitioners in the petition that they have already paid 8 lacs to the respondent No.3. This has not been denied by respondent No.3. In all the respondent No.3 has received ` 18 lacs. She has filed an affidavit in this Court that she has no objection in case FIR No.132 dated 11.9.2009 under Sections, 406, 498-A, 34 IPC, registered at Police Station, Baddi is quashed. On 29.11.2011 when she appeared in the Court she again reiterated that she has no objection in case FIR No.132 dated 11.9.2009 under Sections, 406, 498-A, 34 IPC, registered at Police Station, Baddi is quashed.
registered at Police Station, Baddi under Sections 406, 498A, 34 IPC and case No.228/2 of 2010 titled as State vs. Robinder Singh, arising out of said FIR No.132 of 2009 pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Nalagarh are liable to be quashed.
December 26, 2011. ( Kuldip Singh), ( sks) Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can quash FIR under Section 498A IPC after parties have settled the dispute through mutual consent decree.
Whether continuation of criminal proceedings will serve the ends of justice given the witness's affidavit declaring no objection to quashing.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sushma Devi and others vs. State of H.P.Relied on¶36
Cr.MMO No.83 of 2003 Sushma Devi and others vs. State of H.P.
B.S. Joshi and others vs. State of HaryanaRelied on¶37
AIR 2003 Supreme Court 1386 B.S. Joshi and others v. State of Haryana · Who else cites this
Rajinder Singh vs. State of H.P.Relied on¶40
2004 (2) SLC 5 Rajinder Singh v. State of H.P.
Dr. Robinder Singh
Gajendra Singh
Jaspal Kaur
State of Himachal Pradesh
Police Station Incharge Baddi
Harman Jit Kaur
Kuldip Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court