Allowed

Girish Sharma v. State of Hp and Anr.

Himachal Pradesh HC3 Mar 2023CRMMO/1267/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought quashing of an FIR for rape and IPC offences based on a settlement with the complainant, who married another person. The Court applied Narinder Singh guidelines, finding the settlement genuine and continuing proceedings an abuse of process, leading to quashing.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 31 of 2021 dated 18.08.2021 registered under Sections 376, 506 of IPC and Section 3(2)(V) of SC & ST Act and resultant proceedings quashed.

Girish Sharma Vs State of Hp and Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Himachal Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

¶3

Cr.MMO No.1267 of 2022 Decided on 03^rd March, 2023 Girish Sharma …Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

State of H.P. & Anr. …Respondents

¶6

Coarm

¶7

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge

¶8

1Whether approved for reporting?

¶9

For the petitioner:	Mr. Dinesh Kumar, Advocate.
For the respondents:	Mr. J.S. Guleria, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No.1.
	Mr. Y. Paul, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

¶10

Virender Singh, Judge (Oral )

¶11

Petitioner has filed the present petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Cr.P.C.’) for quashing of FIR No.31 of 2021 dated 18.08.2021, registered under Sections 376, 506 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’) and Section 3(2)(V) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘SC & ST Act’) with Women Police Station West, Solan, H.P., as well as, resultant proceedings thereto, pending adjudication in the Court of learned Special Judge Solan, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court’).

¶12

¶13

2. According to the factual position, as narrated in the petition, respondent No.2 has lodged FIR No. 31 of 2021, under the provisions of Sections 376, 506 of the IPC and Section 3(2)(V) of SC & ST Act against the petitioner. The petitioner was arrested on 19.08.2021 and was released on 07.10.2021 by this Court. According to the petitioner, he and respondent No.2 were in love affair with each other, but their parents were not agreed for their marriage, as both of them i.e. petitioner and respondent No.2, belong to different caste.

¶14

3. Now, the matter is stated to have been compromised between the petitioner and respondent No.2 and in pursuance of the said compromise, respondent No.2 has also executed an affidavit before the Executive Magistrate, in which, she has categorically stated that she does not want to proceed further with the FIR registered against the petitioner. It has also been mentioned in the petition that respondent No.2, at the time of lodging the FIR, was under mental pressure and out of anger, she has lodged the FIR. Now, respondent No.2 has got married and she does not want to disturb her married life due to this case.

¶15

4. On all these submissions, a prayer has been made to quash the FIR in question, as well as, the resultant proceedings thereto.

¶16

¶17

5. The petition is duly supported by the affidavit of the petitioner, namely, Sh. Girish Sharma and the affidavit sworn by respondent No.2 before the Executive Magistrate Solan, H.P., dated 03.08.2022.

¶18

6. When put on notice, the State has filed reply, narrating the factual position, as mentioned in the FIR. It has also been averred in the reply that after the completion of investigation, the report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., has been submitted before the learned trial Court, which is pending adjudication, for consideration on charge, on 21.04.2023. The factual position, as asserted in the petition, has been denied.

¶19

7. Respondent No.2 has not opted to file reply. However, on the basis of the compromise between the petitioner and respondent No.2, she has appeared before this Court and has made a statement, on oath, disclosing therein that due to misunderstanding, she had lodged the FIR against the petitioner. She has also asserted that she alongwith the petitioner were living in live-in-relation.

¶20

8. According to her deposition on oath, after the registration of the FIR, she got married and now she is residing with her husband. In order to live peacefully in the matrimonial home, she is not interested to pursue the matter and prayed that the FIR, as well as, the resultant proceedings may kindly be

¶21

¶22

quashed.

¶23

9. Apart from this, she has also asserted her stand qua

¶24

the fact that she has sworn the affidavit on the basis of the compromise. The petitioner has also taken the same stand on oath and prayed that the petition may kindly be allowed.

¶25

10. Heard.

¶26

11. The photocopy of the FIR in question has also been annexed with this petition. Perusal of the same shows that in the opening line of the FIR, respondent No.2 has mentioned that she is in relationship with the petitioner from the last two years. Now, the petitioner, as well as, respondent No.2 have taken the stand, before this Court, by making a statement, on oath, that a compromise has been effected between them and on the basis of the compromise, they have prayed that the FIR in question, as well as, resultant proceedings may kindly be quashed. Meaning thereby, the FIR has been registered due to their misunderstanding. Respondent No.2 was not minor at the time of alleged incident and, even considering the contents of the FIR, their relationship was consensual.

¶27

12. Moreover, respondent No.2 is now married and living happily with her husband and compelling her to appear in the Court definitely would cause adverse effect on her matrimonial life. When respondent No.2 has sworn the affidavit before the Executive

¶28

¶29

Magistrate, reiterating the factum of compromise, then, the chances are very bleak that respondent No.2 would appear against the petitioner and depose, as per the alleged factual position, as mentioned in the FIR. In nut shell, it can be said that the chances of conviction of the petitioner, in the present case, are very bleak and no useful purpose would be served by keeping in the proceedings alive.

¶30

13. Therefore, this Court deems it fit to consider the present petition, in the light of the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Narinder Singh and others versus State of Punjab and another, ( 2014) 6 Supreme Court Cases 466, whereby, Hon’ble Apex Court has formulated guidelines for accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings.

¶31

14. 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 Cr.P.C., is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C.

¶32

15. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings, even in those cases, which are not compoundable, where the parties

¶33

¶34

have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised, in view of the guiding principles as decided by Hon’ble Apex Court in Narinder Singh’s case supra. The relevant portion of para 29 of the judgment is reproduced as under:-

¶35

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:

¶36

29.1Power 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.

¶37

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:

¶38

(i) ends of justice, or

¶39

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

¶40

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.

¶41

16. Judging the facts and circumstances of the present

¶42

case, in the light of the decision rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court, in Narinder Singh’s case supra , this Court is satisfied that respondent No.2 has entered into compromise with the petitioner,

¶43

in order to live peacefully in the matrimonial home. Although, the police has filed the charge-sheet, which is pending adjudication,

¶44

¶45

but, as mentioned above, the chances of success of the prosecution, in this case, are very bleak and no useful purpose would be served by keeping the proceedings pending till culmination of the trial.

¶46

17. Moreover, the acceptance of the petition would also save the precious judicial time, which, could be devoted by the learned trial Court, for the decision of some other serious matters.

¶47

18. Considering all these facts, this Court is of the considered view that continuation of the present proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law.

¶48

19. Taking into consideration the compromise entered into between the petitioner and statements to this effect, made by the parties to the compromise, in this Court, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.31 of 2021 dated 18.08.2021, registered under Sections 376, 506 of IPC and Section 3(2)(V) of SC & ST Act, at Women Police Station West, Solan, H.P., as well as resultant proceedings thereto, are quashed.

¶49

20. The affidavit, Annexure P-2, as well as statements of the parties to the compromise, made today in the Court, shall form part of the judgment.

¶50

¶51

21. Miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed

¶52

of.

¶53

(Virender Singh) Judge

¶54

March 03, 2023 (Vinod)

Girish Sharma v. State of Hp and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Girish Sharma v. State of Hp 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

Hardeep Thakur Vs State of Hp

Jagdish Kumar Mittal Vs CBI

Vijay Kumar Vs State of Hp

M/S Karam Chand Sharma and Another Vs M/S Om Hardware

Rajinder Singh Vs State of Hp

Anup Chand Vs State of Hp