Pawan Kumar Vs State of Hp and Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr.MMO No.186 of 2024

Date of Decision: 09.07.2024

___________________ Pawan Kumar	_______________________ Versus	_____________ …….Petitioner
State of H.P. & others		… Respondents
___________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sa Whether approved for re	_______________________ ndeep Sharma, Judge. porting?¹	_____________
For the Petitioner:	Mr. Rakesh Kumar Chaudha	ry, Advocate.
For the Respondents:	Mr. Rajan Kahol and Additional Advocate Genera No.1/State.	Mr. B.C.Verma, ls, for respondent
	Mr. Panku Choudhary, respondent Nos. 2 and 3.	Advocate, for
___________________ Sandeep Sharma, Jud	_______________________ ge (oral):	_____________

¶5

By way of instant petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for quashing of FIR No. 24 of 2022, dated 01.07.2022, under Sections 376(2)(n) of IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act, registered at Women Police Station, Mandi, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh as well as consequent proceedings, if any, pending adjudication in the competent court of law, on the basis of the compromise arrived inter se parties (Annexure P-2) , whereby both the parties have resolved to settle their dispute amicably interse them.

¶6

1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶7

2

¶8

Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record are that FIR, sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings, came to be lodged at the behest of respondent No.2, Smt. Meera Devi, who happens to be mother of the victim/prosecutrix/respondent No.3 ( hereinafter referred to as the complainant), alleging therein that her elder daughter, aged 15 years, was to taken to Hospital by her on account of abdomen pain, where it came to be transpired that she is pregnant. Complainant alleged that subsequently her daughter i.e. victim/prosecutrix told her in January, 2022 that petitioneraccused Pawan Kumar alias Tanu had sexually assaulted her against her wishes, as a result thereof, she has become pregnant. Though, after completion of the investigation, police presented the challan in the competent Court of law, but before same could be taken to its logical end, parties have entered into compromise, whereby they resolved to settle their dispute amicably interse them. Since petitioner-accused and victim/prosecutrix have solemnized marriage and one child has also been born, families of both the parties have decided not to pursue the case. In the aforesaid background, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings for quashing of FIR as well as consequent proceedings, if any, pending in the competent Court of law.

¶9

Pursuant to the notices issued in the instant proceedings, respondent-State has filed status report/reply, wherein there is no

¶10

3

¶11

mention of compromise, if any, arrived interse parties. However, respondent/ complainant, victim/prosecutrix and her father have come present in Court and are being represented by Mr. Panku Choudhary, Advocate.

¶12

Smt. Meera Devi and Sh. Tikam Ram, parents of the victim/prosecutrix, state on oath before this Court that they of their own volition and without there being any external pressure have entered into the compromise, whereby they have resolved to settle their dispute amicably interse them. They state that FIR, sought to be quashed, is result of misunderstanding because subsequently it transpired that no wrong was committed upon their daughter by the petitioner-accused. They state that since petitioner-accused and victim/prosecutrix have solemnized marriage and they have one child to look after, they shall have no objection in case FIR as well as consequent proceedings instituted at their behest are quashed and set aside and petitioner-accused is acquitted of the charges framed against him. While admitting the contents of the compromise placed on record to be correct, they also admit their signatures upon the same. Their statements are taken on record.

¶13

Respondent No.3/victim/prosecutrix (name withheld to protect her identity) also states on oath before this Court that she of her own volition and without there being any external pressure has entered into the compromise with the petitioner-accused. She states

¶14

4

¶15

that FIR, sought to be quashed, is result of misunderstanding because nothing had happened against her wishes. She states that since she has already solemnized marriage with the petitioneraccused and at present she is living happy married life with her husband and minor child, she shall have no objection in case FIR as well as consequent proceedings are quashed and set aside and petitioner-accused is acquitted of the charges framed against him.

¶16

After having heard statements made by the parents of the victim/prosecutrix and the victim/prosecutrix, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, states that though petitioner is accused of heinous crime punishable under Section 376(2)(n) of IPC, but in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case where both the petitioner and victim/prosecutrix have solemnized marriage and at present are living happy married life, this Court may pass appropriate orders. While inviting attention of this Court to the reply filed by the respondent-State, wherein it has been recorded that as per DNA report, petitioner-accused is not the biological father of the child, Mr. Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General states that otherwise chances of conviction of petitioner- accused are very remote and bleak in view of the statements made by the parents of the victim/prosecutrix and the victim/prosecutrix and as such, this Court in the interest of justice may pass appropriate orders.

¶17

5

¶18

The question which now needs consideration is whether FIR’s in question can be ordered to be quashed when Hon'ble Apex Court 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., since such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society.

¶19

At this stage, it would be relevant to take note of the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court i n Narinder Singh (supra), whereby the 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. 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. In para Nos. 29 to 29.7 of the judgment Hon'ble Apex Court

¶20

6

¶21

has laid down certain parameters to be followed, while compounding offences.

¶22

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. Aforesaid view taken by Hon'ble Apex Court has been further reiterated in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and anr. (2012) 10 SCC 303.

¶23

The Hon’ble Apex Court in case Gian Singh supra 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 to compound the 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

¶24

7

¶25

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 and Ors . vs. Union Territory through Administrator, UT, Chandigarh and Ors . (2013) 11 SCC 497 has further reiterated that 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. Hon'ble Apex Court further observed that when offences of a personal nature, burying them would bring about peace and amity between the two sides.

¶26

Hon’ble Apex Court in its 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.

¶27

No doubt, in terms of afore judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court, High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence and its social impact, however, this Court cannot

¶28

8

¶29

lose sight of the fact that though petitioner-accused has been charged under Section 376(2)(n) of IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act, but as of today, both the victim/prosecutrix and the petitioner-accused have solemnized marriage and they have one child to take care. Moreover, report of DNA adduced on record suggests something else. As per the report, petitioner-accused is not the biological father of the child delivered by the victim/prosecutrix, but yet he has solemnized marriage with the victim/prosecutrix, who otherwise in uncertain terms has stated before this Court that at no point of time wrong, if any, was committed upon her by the petitioner-accused. Parents of the victim/prosecutrix have also stated that FIR sought to be quashed is result of misunderstanding and since victim/prosecutrix and petitioner-accused have already solemnized marriage, they do not wish to prosecute the case further. In the aforesaid scenario, if criminal proceedings are permitted to continue, ultimate loser/sufferer would be victim/prosecutrix, who otherwise in the event of punishment, if any, recoded against the petitioner-accused, would be left alone to take care of minor child. No doubt, while accepting prayer for quashing of the FIR in heinous crime like rape, etc. interest of society at large is to be kept in mind rather than the interest of an individual, however in the facts and circumstances of the case, as detailed hereinabove, interest of victim/prosecutrix appears to be of paramount importance. If is not protected and petitioner /accused is

¶30

9

¶31

left to be prosecuted for his having committed the offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(n) of IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act , ultimate sufferer would be victim/prosecutrix and as such, no fruitful purpose would be served in continuing with the criminal proceedings. Otherwise also, there are bleak and remote chances of conviction of accused and as such, this court sees no impediment in accepting the prayer made by petitioner for quashing of FIR.

¶32

Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court (supra), FIR No. 24 of 2022, dated 01.07.2022, under Sections 376(2)(n) of IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act, registered at Women Police Station, Mandi, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh as well as consequent proceedings, if any, pending adjudication in the competent Court of law, are quashed and set aside. Accused is acquitted of the charges framed against him.

¶33

The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms, alongwith all pending applications.

¶34

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

¶35

July 09, 2024 (shankar)

Pawan Kumar v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pawan Kumar v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pankaj Kumar Sahore Vs Rajesh Modgil

Pyare Lal and Others Vs State of Hp and Others

Prateek and Others Vs State of Hp and Others

Thakur Dass and Ors. Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Sunil Kumar Vs Sushma Devi and Others

Mohar Singh Vs State of Hp