Quashed

Jaram Singh v. State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC5 Jan 2024CRMMO/611/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed FIR No. 95 of 2020 under Sections 307, 504 and 506 IPC and related proceedings pending before the Sessions Court. The quashing was based on a compromise between the petitioner (father-in-law) and respondents (daughter-in-law and wife) to maintain cordial relations, a fact corroborated by affidavits. The Court held that since the offence did not fall within the exceptions car

What did the court decide?

Quashing of FIR No. 95 of 2020 and proceedings pending before the learned Sessions Judge, Chamba.

Jaram Singh Vs State of Hp and Others — Matrimonial and Divorce | Himachal Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

¶3

Cr. MMO No. 611 of 2023

¶4

Decided on : 5.1.2024

Jaram Singh

…Petitioner

Versus

State of H.P.& ors.

¶9

…Respondents

¶10

Coram

¶11

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge Whether approved for reporting?

¶12

For the Petitioner : Mr. N.K. Thakur, Senior Advocate with Mr. Divya Raj Singh, Advocate.

¶13

For the Respondents : Mr. Tejasvi Sharma Addl. A.G. with Ms. Leena Guleria, Dy. A.G., for respondent No. 1.

¶14

Mr. Nitish Negi, Advocate, for respondents No. 2 and 3.

¶15

Virender Singh, Judge (oral)

¶16

The petitioner has filed the present petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Cr. P.C.’) seeking quashing of FIR No. 95 of 2020, dated 28.7.2020,

¶17

¶18

(hereinafter referred to as ‘the FIR in question’), under Sections 307, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’) registered with Police Station, Kihar, District Chamba, H.P., as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, pending in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Chamba (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court), in view of the compromise, having been effected, between the parties.

¶19

As per the stand taken in the petition, respondent No. 2 is daughter-in-law of the petitioner, whereas, respondent No. 3 is wife of the petitioner. It is the further case of the petitioner that due to some misunderstanding, respondent No. 2 had lodged the FIR in question, against him.

¶20

After registration of the FIR, on statement of respondent No. 2, criminal machinery swung into motion. After completion of the investigation, report under Section 173(2) of Cr. P.C. was submitted in the learned trial Court.

¶21

¶22

Now, the petitioner is before this Court, with a

¶23

prayer to quash the FIR in question, as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial Court, on the basis of compromise, which has taken place between the parties, as respondent No. 2 is daughter-in-law of the petitioner and respondent No. 3 is his wife, and in order to maintain their cordial relations, they have compromised the matter. The terms and conditions of the compromise have been reduced into writing and copy of the same has been annexed with the petition, as Annexure P-3.

¶24

On all these submissions, a prayer to allow the present petition, by quashing the FIR in question, as well as, proceedings resultant thereto, has been made. 6. When put to notice, respondent-State has filed

¶25

the status report, disclosing therein the manner, in which, the FIR in question has been registered and Police, after investigating the matter, submitted the report under Section 173(2) of the Cr.P.C., which is

¶26

¶27

pending in the learned trial Court. The proceedings are stated to be pending, before the learned trial Court.

¶28

Respondent No. 2, when appeared before this Court, has made a statement on oath, disclosing therein the manner, in which the FIR in question has been lodged by her, against the petitioner. According to her, due to some mis-understanding, she had lodged the FIR in question, against the petitioner. But, now the matter

¶29

has been compromised between the parties, vide Annexure P-3, in order to maintain their cordial relations, as the mis-understanding has been cleared and petitioner and respondent No. 3 are residing together happily, as husband-wife.

¶30

On the basis of compromise, Annexure P-3, respondent No 2 has categorically stated that she does not want to proceed further with the matter and she has no objection, in the case the present petition is allowed and the FIR in question, as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, are quashed.

¶31

¶32

Injured, respondent No. 3 has also made a

¶33

statement on oath, deposing that due to some misunderstanding, the FIR was lodged by respondent No. 2 against the petitioner. She has further deposed that the mis-understanding has now been cleared and the matter has been compromised, between the parties, vide Annexure P-3. She has further deposed that she is residing happily in her matrimonial home, alongwith petitioner and their children.

¶34

Lastly, she has deposed that she has no objection, in case the present petition is allowed and the FIR in question, as well as, proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial Court, are quashed.

¶35

Petitioner has also made the statement on oath, re-asserting the above factual position.

¶36

Heard.

¶37

The FIR, in the present case, has been

¶38

registered under Sections 307, 504 and 506 of IPC, in which Police has submitted report under Section 173(2)

¶39

¶40

Cr. P.C., which is pending before the learned trial Court.

¶41

In view of the relationship between the parties, i.e. petitioner and respondent No. 3, who are not strangers, but husband-wife, who, as per their stand, are now residing happily together, this Court is of the view that in the present case, genuineness of the compromise Annexure P-3, cannot be doubted.

¶42

The primary purpose of law is to maintain peace and harmony in the society and when, the parties to the lis, i.e. petitioner and respondents No. 2 and 3, have compromised the matter, then, the continuation of the criminal proceedings, arising out of the FIR in question, lodged by respondent No. 2, would certainly amount to abuse of the process of law.

¶43

Acceptance of the compromise will not only help the petitioner and respondent No.3 to live happily in the matrimonial home, but will also save the precious judicial time of the learned trial Court, as the learned trial Court will be in a position to devote such time, for deciding some other serious disputes, pending before it.

¶44

¶45

Otherwise also, the person, who has put criminal machinery into motion, has stated, on oath, that due to some mis-understanding, she has lodged the FIR in question, against the petitioner, but the same has now been cleared, in such situation, chances of success of prosecution case, against the petitioner, are not so bright.

¶46

Moreover, the present case does not fall within the exception, as carved out by Hon’ble Apex Court in

¶47

Narinder Singh and others versus State of Punjab

¶48

and another , (2014) 6 Supreme Court Cases 466. para29.3 of the judgment is reproduced as under:

¶49

29.3. Such a power is not be exercised in those prosecutions 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. Similarly, for offences alleged to have been 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.

¶50

18. Considering all these facts, the present petition

¶51

is allowed and FIR No. 95 of 2020, dated 28.7.2020,

¶52

¶53

under Sections 307, 504 and 506 of the IPC and the proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial Court, are quashed.

¶54

The statements, so recorded, before this Court, as well as, compromise deed Annexure P-3, shall form part of the judgment.

¶55

The present petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also

¶56

stands disposed of.

¶57

(Virender Singh) Judge

¶58

January 5, 2024 Kalpana

Jaram Singh v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaram Singh v. State of Hp and Others

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

Tanishka and Another (Minor through Their Mother Poonam Kumari) Vs Ajit Singh

Ajit Singh Vs Tanishka and Anr.

Chinta Mani Vs State of Hp and Another

The Land Acquisition Officercollector Vs Mehar Chand

Anil Kumar and Ors. Vs State of Hp and Anr.

Ritik Palsra and Others Vs State of Hp and Another