Himachal Pradesh High CourtRahul Thakur vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 3 January, 2020Author:Vivek Singh ThakurBench:Vivek Singh Thakur1\n\n\n\n\n              IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH\n                              SHIMLA\n\n                                         Cr. MMO No. 784 of 2019\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                .\n\n                                         Date of Decision: January 3, 2020\n\n\n    Rahul Thakur                                                                    ...Petitioner.\n\n\n\n\n\n                                                  Versus\n\n    State of Himachal Pradesh\n    & another                                                                  ..Respondents.\n\n\n\n\n\n    Coram:\n    The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.\n    Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes\n\n\n    For the Petitioner:                  Mr. Vishwa Bhushan, Advocate.\n\n    For the Respondents:                 Mr.S.C. Sharma, Additional Advocate\n                                         General, with M/s Kamal Kant, Kuldeep\n                                         Chand Thakur & Ms.Seema Sharma,\n\n\n                                         Deputy     Advocate    Generals,   for\n                                         respondent No.1-State.\n                                         Mr.   Ashok   Kumar,                  Advocate,          for\n\n\n\n\n                                         respondent No.2.\n\n\n\n\n\n    Vivek Singh Thakur, J. (oral)This petition has been preferred underSection 482of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as\n\n    'Cr.PC'), by petitioner Rahul Thakur for quashing FIR No. 46 of\n\n    2019 dated 02.11.2019, registered in Women Police Station,\n\n    Mandi, District Mandi, H.P., underSection 376of the Indian Penal\n\n    Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC' in short) and the\n\n    consequent criminal proceedings arising thereto.1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2020 20:25:44 :::HCHP22.           Petitioner Rahul Thakur and respondent No.2 Prem\n\n    Lata are present in person in the Court today, who have been\n\n    identified by their respective learned counsel. Their statements,\n\n\n\n\n                                                             .on oath, have also been recorded separately today in the Court.3.           In her statement complainant-respondent No.2 Prem\n\n    Lata has stated that her first meeting with petitioner was at Bus-Stand Mandi and at that time, she was pursuing her Graduation\n\n    Course from Government College, Mandi and petitioner was\n\n\n\n\n\n    serving as a Probationary Officer in Gramin Bank. She has further\n\n    stated that after having friendship, they had developed intimacy\n\n    and decided to marry each other and they had also taken their\n\n    parents in confidence to materialize their proposal and for\n\n    assurance of the marriage, they had also developed physical\n\n    relations,   however,   thereafter,   petitioner     had      shown        his\n\n\n\n    reluctance to marry her, which caused mistrust about relations\n\n\n\n\n    and lead to lodging of FIR against the petitioner. She has further\n\n    stated that later on her family as well as family of petitioner had\n\n\n\n\n\n    clarified that fluctuation in behaviour of petitioner was temporary\n\n\n\n\n\n    and in fact he was in the process of taking decision to solemnize\n\n    marriage and was thinking about future thereafter and that after\n\n    lodging of FIR, petitioner was arrested and was released on bail\n\n    on 03.12.2019 and despite lodging of FIR against petitioner by\n\n    her, he not only agreed to marry with her but with the consent of\n\n    parents, they have solemnized marriage on 13.12.2019 in Tarna\n\n    Mata Temple, Mandi and thereafter, marriage has also been\n\n    registered at Sl. No.32 in Marriage Register maintained by Gram::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2020 20:25:44 :::HCHP3Panchayat Rakhoh.     She has further stated that her name has\n\n    also been entered in the Family Register of the said Panchayat as\n\n    a wife of petitioner and since then, she is residing alongwith\n\n\n\n\n                                                             .petitioner in the house of her in-laws and they are living happy\n\n\n\n\n\n    married life and because of subsequent conduct of the petitioner,\n\n    she had developed full faith that he will maintain her properly\n\n\n\n\n\n    and will not, in any manner, cause harm to her and her interests\n\n    and believing him she does not want to continue criminal\n\n\n\n\n\n    proceeding against him as it would be actually harming her and\n\n    her interest and also their family life. She has further stated that\n\n    she has deposed in this Court, out of her free will, consent and\n\n    without any external pressure, coercion or threat of any kind.4.           In his statement, petitioner Rahul Thakur has stated\n\n    that he has heard the statement made by complainant-respondent No.2 Prem Lata and has endorsed the same to be\n\n\n\n\n    true and correct and had that he married her with his free will,\n\n    consent and without any pressure, threat or coercion and in fact,\n\n\n\n\n\n    he had never intended not to marry her, but there was some\n\n\n\n\n\n    fluctuation in his thoughts, which were shared with her and such\n\n    communication had caused mistrust in their relations leading to\n\n    lodging of FIR.   He has further stated that he has realized his\n\n    mistake and has taken steps to rectify the mistake and has also\n\n    undertaken to keep his wife-respondent No.2 Prem Lata happy\n\n    and to maintain her properly in all respects. He has further\n\n    stated that he has deposed in this Court, out of his free will,::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2020 20:25:44 :::HCHP4consent and without any external pressure, coercion or threat of\n\n    any kind.5.            Considering peculiar facts and circumstances of\n\n\n\n\n                                                                   .present case, petition has been opposed on behalf of respondent\n\n\n\n\n\n    No. 1-State on the ground that it is not maintainable as in\n\n    investigation a case underSection 376IPC is made out and on\n\n\n\n\n\n    the basis of challan presented in Court trial is pending\n\n    consideration of Court.      It is also contended on behalf of\n\n\n\n\n\n    respondent/State that petitioner is not entitled to invoke inherent\n\n    jurisdiction of this Court to exercise its power, keeping in view\n\n    the nature of crime, for quashing of FIR with respect to an\n\n    offence heinous in nature and not compoundable under Section\n\n    320 Cr.P.C.6.            It   is   a   case       of     peculiar        nature        where\n\n\n\n    complainant/respondent No.2 and accused/petitioner are now\n\n\n\n\n    residing under one and same roof as husband and wife. In fact it\n\n    appears from their statements, recorded on oath, that petitioner\n\n\n\n\n\n    without taking final decision, had developed intimacy with\n\n\n\n\n\n    respondent No.2 with intention to marry her, which had led to\n\n    physical relations with each other, however, thereafter, there\n\n    was fluctuation in mind of petitioner which was communicated by\n\n    him to respondent No.2 whereupon, and rightly so, respondent\n\n    No.2 had gathered impression that petitioner was not inclined to\n\n    marry her and had developed physical relations with her in\n\n    deceitful manner and had cheated her and, consequently, it had\n\n    resulted into registration of FIR against petitioner. However,::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2020 20:25:44 :::HCHP5thereafter,   on     removal    of    misunderstanding,              they        have\n\n    solemnized marriage on 13.12.2019 in Tarna Mata Temple,\n\n    Mandi, H.P., in accordance with Hindu rites and rituals and now\n\n\n\n\n                                                                    .respondent    No.2    is   residing       with   in-laws     along        with    her\n\n\n\n\n\n    husband/petitioner and has prayed for quashing of FIR and\n\n    criminal   proceedings      pending         against      her      husband         for\n\n\n\n\n\n    betterment of her life as well as welfare of her husband and in-laws.7.            Three Judges Bench of the Apex Court inGian Singh\n\n    Vs. State of Punjab and Ors.reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 ,\n\n    explaining that High Court has inherent power underSection 482of the Code of Criminal Procedure with no statutory limitation\n\n    includingSection 320Cr.PC, has held that these powers are to\n\n    be exercised to secure the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of\n\n\n\n    process of any Court and these powers can be exercised to\n\n\n\n\n    quash criminal proceedings or complaint or FIR in appropriate\n\n    cases where offender and victim have settled their dispute and\n\n\n\n\n\n    for that purpose no definite category of offence can be\n\n\n\n\n\n    prescribed. However, it is also observed that Courts must have\n\n    due regard to nature and gravity of the crime and criminal\n\n    proceedings in heinous         and serious offences or offence like\n\n    murder, rape and dacoity etc. should not be quashed despite\n\n    victim or victim family have settled the dispute with offender.Jurisdiction vested in High Court underSection 482Cr.PC is held\n\n    to be exercisable for quashing criminal proceedings in cases\n\n    having     overwhelming        and    predominatingly             civil     flavour::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2020 20:25:44 :::HCHP6particularly    offences    arising       from       commercial,           financial,\n\n    mercantile, civil partnership, or such like transactions, or even\n\n    offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry etc., family\n\n\n\n\n                                                                      .disputes or other such disputes where wrong is basically private\n\n\n\n\n\n    or personal nature where parties mutually resolve their dispute\n\n    amicably. It was also held that no category or cases for this\n\n\n\n\n\n    purpose could be prescribed and each case has to be dealt with\n\n    on its own merit but it is also clarified that this power does not\n\n\n\n\n\n    extend to crimes against society.8.             Ther  Apex    Court        in     Parbatbhai          Aahir      alias\n\n    Parbathbhai Bhimsingbhai Karmur and others vs. State of\n\n    Gujarat and another, (2017) 9 SCC 641 , summarizing the\n\n    broad principles regarding inherent powers of the High Court\n\n    under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has recognized that these powers are\n\n\n\n    not inhibited by provisions of Section 320 Cr.P.C.9.             The Apex Court in caseNarinder Singh and others\n\n    vs. State of Punjab and othersreported in (2014)6 SCC 466\n\n\n\n\n\n    and also inState of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan and\n\n\n\n\n\n    others(2019) 5 SCC 688 has summed up and laid down\n\n    principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving\n\n    adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and\n\n    exercise its power underSection 482of the Code while accepting\n\n    the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to\n\n    accept the settlement with direction to continue with criminal\n\n    proceedings.::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2020 20:25:44 :::HCHP710.          No doubtSection 376IPC is not compoundable\n\n    underSection 320Cr. P.C. However, as explained by Hon'ble\n\n    Supreme Court in Gian Singh's, Parbatbhai and Narinder Singh's\n\n\n\n\n                                                            .cases supra, power of High Court underSection 482Cr.PC is not\n\n\n\n\n\n    inhibited by the provisions ofSection 320Cr.P.C. and FIR as well\n\n    as criminal proceedings can be quashed by exercising inherent\n\n\n\n\n\n    powers underSection 482Cr.PC, if it is warranted in given facts\n\n    and circumstances of the case for ends of justice or to prevent\n\n\n\n\n\n    abuse of the process of any Court, even in those cases which are\n\n    not compoundable where parties have settled the matter\n\n    between themselves.11.          In present case, respondent No.2/complainant also\n\n    appeared in person in this Court and her statement, as discussed\n\n    in para 3 supra, has also been recorded in this Court, wherein\n\n\n\n    she has expressed her desire to close the proceedings against\n\n\n\n\n    the petitioner.12.          It is true that as a matter of principle, quashing of\n\n\n\n\n\n    FIR on the basis of compromise should not be permitted in case\n\n\n\n\n\n    of heinous crime likeSection 376IPC for the reason that said\n\n    crime is against the society having adverse impact on it and also\n\n    that possibility of compromise under any kind of pressure, threat\n\n    or coercion cannot be ruled out in such cases as victims normally\n\n    belong to the weaker class. But in given facts and circumstances\n\n    of the present case, where offence of rape is made out because\n\n    of the fact that a young girl, apprehending cheating has lodged::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2020 20:25:44 :::HCHP8FIR and now again residing in her matrimonial house with\n\n    petitioner-accused, it cannot be compared with other cases.13.          Observation of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in\n\n\n\n\n                                                             .similar case decided on 12.01.2017 in Cr.MMO No. 385 of 2016,\n\n\n\n\n\n    titled asChander Vir Kaundal vs. State of H.P., would also be\n\n    relevant, where it is recorded that looking at the case from\n\n\n\n\n\n    another angle, since the petitioner has solemnized marriage with\n\n    respondent, obviously, there is no possibility of her supporting\n\n\n\n\n\n    the charge in case the petitioner is put to trial. Therefore, in such\n\n    circumstances, the continuation of criminal proceedings would\n\n    only cause untoward torture or harassment apart from creating\n\n    undue social and psychological pressure upon the private parties\n\n    and it will be an extremely sad story in case complainant is\n\n    called in the witness box to depose against the accused, who is\n\n\n\n    none other than her husband.14.          In present case also, deposition of victim in the\n\n    Court in consonance with prosecution case would lead to landing\n\n\n\n\n\n    her husband in jail and pushing her in pitch dark whereas\n\n\n\n\n\n    retracting from her earlier version may put her in unnecessary\n\n    trouble.15.          Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner has also\n\n    referred to judgments passed by the Coordinate Benches in\n\n    Cr.MMO No. 301 of 2018, decided on 24.04.2019, titled asAsha\n\n    Devi & others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & another; Cr.MMO\n\n    No. 399 of 2018, decided on 18.09.2018, titled asKajal & another\n\n    vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & another; Cr.MMO No. 244 of::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2020 20:25:44 :::HCHP92019, decided on 07.05.2019 titled asX vs. State of H.P. &\n\n    others; Criminal Miscellaneous (Main) No. 139 of 2018, decided\n\n    on 26.5.2018, titledSahil Chaudhary vs. State of H.P.and\n\n\n\n\n                                                             .another; and Cr.MMO No.41 of 2019, titled asRavi Goyal and\n\n\n\n\n\n    another vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & others, decided on\n\n    24.09.2019 wherein FIRs registered underSection 376IPC read\n\n\n\n\n\n    with provisions ofPOCSO Acthave been quashed in similar\n\n    circumstances where victims and accused had married to each\n\n\n\n\n\n    other.16.          The ratio of lawlaid down bythe Apex Court on the\n\n    issue of permitting the compromise and quashing of FIR in all\n\n    cases, the Courts must consider the interest of public at large\n\n    and the offence offending the Society at large should not be\n\n    permitted to be compromised and quashing of FIR or criminal\n\n\n\n    proceedings on the basis of such compromise should not be\n\n\n\n\n    permitted.   Present case is somewhat different from general\n\n    category, as in present case, it is not on the basis of compromise\n\n\n\n\n\n    that quashing of FIR has been sought for, but it is a case where\n\n\n\n\n\n    interest of victim is also involved and welfare of victim appears\n\n    to be in closing criminal proceedings as she has proclaimed\n\n    herself to be wife of accused. Now in the facts and circumstances\n\n    of the case, this case cannot be termed as a case subjecting the\n\n    victim-complainant forcibly to illicit sexual intercourse. Further,\n\n    it is a peculiar kind of case where there is a conflict between\n\n    interest of victim and societal interest. Interest of victim is not\n\n    purely private in nature as rehabilitation and survival of victim is::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2020 20:25:44 :::HCHP10another issue which involves public interest because to ensure\n\n    rehabilitation    and provide resources for survival of victim is also\n\n    responsibility of society. Considering entire facts and circumstances\n\n\n\n\n                                                               .of the case, in my opinion balance lies in favour of the prayer of the\n\n\n\n\n\n    victim.17.              Family is a primary unit of society, which gives\n\n\n\n\n\n    protection to all family members. Therefore, there is always\n\n    endeavour to save the family. By saving a family, we definitely save\n\n\n\n\n\n    the fabric of society and thus any endeavour to save the family is\n\n    also interest of society. Therefore, in present case, there is conflict\n\n    of interest not only between victim and societal interest but also\n\n    amongst divergent societal interest i.e. to continue proceedings for\n\n    commission of       an offence having adverse impact on the society\n\n    and to save the family in larger interest of society.18.InMadan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab, (2008)\n\n    4 SCC 582, the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasized and advised\n\n\n\n\n    that in the matter of compromise in criminal proceedings, keeping\n\n\n\n\n\n    in view of nature of this case, to save the time of the Court for\n\n    utilizing to decide more effective and meaningful litigation, a\n\n\n\n\n\n    commonsense approach, based on ground realities and bereft of the\n\n    the technicalities of law, should be applied.19.              Therefore, in peculiar facts and circumstances of the\n\n    present case, I am of the considered opinion that interest of justice\n\n    shall be served in quashing the FIR as well as criminal proceedings\n\n    pending against accused-petitioner.20.              Keeping in view the ratio of lawlaid down bythe\n\n    Hon'ble   Apex       Court   and   considering     peculiar      facts      and::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2020 20:25:44 :::HCHP11circumstances of the case in its entirety, present petition is allowed\n\n    and matter is permitted to be compounded. Consequently FIR No.\n\n    46 of 2019 dated 02.11.2019, registered in Women Police Station,\n\n\n\n\n                                                               .Mandi, District Mandi, H.P., is quashed. Consequent to quashing of\n\n\n\n\n\n    FIR, criminal proceedings initiated against accused-petitioner in\n\n    pursuance thereto, are also quashed.Petition stands disposed of in above terms, so also\n\n    pending application(s), if any.(Vivek Singh Thakur),\n                                                    Judge.January 3, 2020\n         (Purohit)::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2020 20:25:44 :::HCHP