High Court quashed FIR under Section 482 CrPC in matrimonial dispute over non-consensual marriage. Parties settled via mediation, agreeing to live together; court invoked inherent powers to prevent abuse of process despite non-compoundable nature of offences.
FIR No. 48 of 2017 and consequent criminal proceedings quashed.
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 AT SHIMLA ON THE 3rd DAY OF AUGUST, 2022 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIVEK SINGH THAKUR CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION (MAIN) U/S 482 CRPC Nos. 303 OF 2021 & 759 of 2019
BETWEEN:Cr.MMO No.303 of 2021
1. PREM CHAND, AGED 60 YEARS, SON OF LATE SH. TRIDU RAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DHEHRA, TEHSIL & POST OFFICE JAISINGHPUR, DISTRICT KANGRA, H.P. (FATHER-IN LAW).
2. ANJU DEVI, WIFE OF SH. SOHAN KUMAR, R/O VILLAGE BHALANDER, POST OFFICER LAHDU, TEHSIL JAISINGHPUR, DISTRICT KANGRA, H.P.(SISTER-IN-LAW) (BY SH. CHANDERNARAYAN SINGH, ADVOCATE)
PETITIONERS
AND
2. CR.MMO NO. 759 OF 2019
1. AMIT KUMAR SON OF PREM CHAND, R/O WARD NO. 7 VPO JAISINGHPUR, PETITIONERS DISTRICT KANGRA H.P.
2. SHIVALI KUMARI,D/O SH. ANIL KUMAR, W/O SH. AMIT KUMAR, R/O WARD NO. 07 JAISINGHPUR, DISTRICT KANGRA, H.P
2
(BY SH. DHEERAJ K. VASHISHT, ADVOCATE)
AND RESPONDENTS
1. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
( MS. RAMEETA RAHI, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR R-1)
2. ANIL KUMAR, SON OF LATE SH.KEHAR SINGH, R/O VILLAGE KAMAND, POST OFFICE KARAN GHAT, JAISINGHPUR, DISTRICT KANGRA,H.P.
( SH. ASHOK TYAGI, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
whether approved for Reporting?
This petition coming on for admission this day, the Court passed the
following:
O R D E R
These petitions have been filed for quashing of one and the same FIR No. 48 of 2017, dated 28.7.2017, registered, under Sections 363, 366, 368, 323, 376, 506 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, in Police Station Panchrukhi, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh and are being decided by this common order for adjudication of common facts and circumstances, and material on record.
3
Kumar, his father Prem Chand and sister Anju Devi. He has stated that his daughter, as per his advise, came back to live with him and before that Amit Kumar and Shivali Kumari had filed a petition CrMMO No. 759 of 2019 for quashing of FIR on the ground that they had solemnized marriage according to their free will and wish. He has stated that later on, Prem Chand and Anju Devi have also filed CRMMO No.303 of 2021 for quashing of FIR. He has stated that today matter was referred to mediation and after sitting together i.e petitioners and private respondents in both petitions, present in the Court, have decided to settle the dispute and Shivali Kumari and Amit Kumar have mutually agreed to live together as husband and wife. He has stated that now he has accepted the marriage between Amit Kumar and Shivali Kumari and has no grudge against Amit Kumar and his family members. He has further stated that he does not want to pursue the complaint filed by him and has sought permission to withdraw the complaint for quashing of FIR and criminal proceedings initiated in pursuance thereto against Prem Chand, Anju Devi (petitioner No.2) and Amit Kumar.
4
acceptable to both the families and, therefore, Anil Kumar has agreed to withdraw the complaint after quashing of FIR.
5
Section 482 Cr.PC is held to be exercisable for quashing criminal proceedings in cases having overwhelming and predominatingly civil favour particularly offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil partnership, or such like transactions, or even offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry etc., family disputes or other such disputes where wrong is basically private or personal nature where parties mutually resolve their dispute amicably. It was also held that no category or cases for this purpose could be prescribed and each case has to be dealt with on its own merit but it is also clarified that this power does not extend to crimes against society.
Laxmi Narayan’s cases supra, power of High Court under Section 482 Cr.PC is not inhibited by the provisions of Section 320 Cr.PC and FIR as well as criminal proceedings
6
can be quashed by exercising inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.PC, if warranted in given facts and circumstances of the case for ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court, even in those cases which are not compoundable where parties have settled the matter between themselves.
7
decided on 27.4.2021; and CRMMO No. 104 of 2022, titled as Sukh Dev vs. State of H.P. & others, decided on 25.3.2022, wherein even FIRs registered under Section 376 IPC and in some cases under Section 376 IPC read with provisions of POCSO Act have also been quashed in similar circumstances where victims and accused had married to each other.
The parties are permitted to use/produce copy of this order, downloaded from the web-page of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, before the authorities concerned, and the said authorities shall not insist for production of a certified copy but if required, may verify passing of order from Website of the High Court.
(Vivek Singh Thakur), 3rd August, 2022 Judge. (veena)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether criminal proceedings for non-compoundable offences can be quashed under Section 482 CrPC despite settlement between parties.
Whether High Court can exercise inherent powers to quash FIR in matrimonial dispute settled after wedding.
Whether mediation settlement between husband, wife, and offending family is fit for quashing criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and OrsFollowed¶37
(2012) 10 SCC 303 · Who else cites this
Narinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and othersFollowed¶41
(2014)6 SCC 466 · Who else cites this
State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan and othersFollowed¶41
(2019) 5 SCC 688 · Who else cites this
Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of PunjabFollowed¶46
(2008) 4 SCC 582 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Prem Chand
Anju Devi
Anil Kumar
Shivali Kumari
State of Himachal Pradesh
Vivek Singh Thakur
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
