Print Previous Hint Next Hint Print Print
This product is Licensed to :

2021 4 ShimLC 2217 ; 2021 0 Supreme(HP) 724
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
SANDEEP SHARMA, J.
Inder Rajput and Ors. - Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. - Respondent
Criminal Misc. Petition (Main) U/S 482 Cr. P.C. No. 366 of 2021
Decided On: 08-09-2021

.

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 482, 173 and 320 - Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 147, 148, 120-B, 149, 323, 307, 452 and 506 - Attempt to murder – Voluntarily causing grievous hurt – House preparation after preparation to hurt - Alleged that marriage of respondent No. 2 and the petitioner No. 1 was solemnised per Hindu rites and customs and out of wedlock, no issue was born. It is further averred that father of respondent No. 2 has already expired prior to her marriage and marriage expenses of respondent No. 2 were borne by the widowed mother of respondent per respondent No. 2, after three days of marriage, petitioner No. 1 telephonically called her mother that respondent No. 2 is feeling pain in her stomach and asked her to take respondent No. 2 to Nal - Alleged that petitioner No. 1 refused to keep respondent No. 2 with him and left her at her mother's house - Alleged that petitioner No. 1 asked mother of respondent No. 2 to get her checked and then promised to take her back but later on he totally refused to take back the respondent No. 2. It is further alleged that petitioners asked respondent No. 2 to bring Rs. 3.00 Lakh to purchase furniture and in case of failure, threatened with divorce – Held, There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions - Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the state have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants - alleged to have been committed by the accused is neither heinous nor serious, and further parties have compromised the matter, as such, this court deems it appropriate to quash the FIR as well as consequential proceedings especially keeping in view the fact that the parties have compromised the matter inter se them, in which case, possibility of conviction is remote and no fruitful purpose would be served in continuing with the criminal proceedings - matter stands compromised between the parties and complainant is no more interested in pursuing the criminal proceedings against the accused - Police Station Himachal Pradesh as well as consequent proceedings pending adjudication before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate - petition stands disposed of.

Catch Words :

Cases Referred:
Narinder Singh and others versus State of Punjab and another (2014) 6 SCC 466 - Referred By
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and anr. (2012) 10 SCC 303 - Referred By
Dimpey Gujral and Ors. vs. Union Territory through Administrator, UT, Chandigarh and Ors. (2013 (11 SCC 497 - Referred By
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 - Referred By
Central Bureau of Investigation v. Maninder Singh (2016) 1 SCC 389 - Referred By
State of Tamil Nadu v. R Vasanthi Stanley (2016) 1 SCC 376 - Referred By

Advocate Appeared :
For the Appellant : Hemant Kumar Thakur, Advocate
For the Respondent : Sudhir Bhatnagar, Desh Raj Thakur, Additional Advocate Generals, R.P. Singh, Narinder Thakur, Deputy Advocate Generals and Nitish Negi, Advocate

Inder Rajput VS State of Himachal Pradesh

ORDER :

SANDEEP SHARMA, J.

1. By way of present petition filed under S. 482 CrPC, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for quashing of FIR No. 287, dated 11.9.2020 under Ss. 498-A, 406, 506 and 34 IPC registered at Police Station Nalagarh, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh as well as consequent proceedings pending adjudication before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalagarh, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-1)

2. Averments contained in the petition, which is duly supported by an affidavit, reveals that the FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings, came to be lodged at the behest of respondent No. 2, who alleged that marriage of respondent No. 2 and the petitioner No. 1 was solemnised on 10.10.2018 as per Hindu rites and customs and out of wedlock, no issue was born. It is further averred that father of respondent No. 2 has already expired prior to her marriage and marriage expenses of respondent No. 2 were borne by the widowed mother of respondent No. 2. As per respondent No. 2, after three days of marriage, petitioner No. 1 telephonically called her mother that respondent No. 2 is feeling pain in her stomach and asked her to

Click Here to Read the rest of this document with a free account to LawCanvas