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

2021 0 Supreme(HP) 901
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Sandeep Sharma, J.
Inder Rajput and Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh through Its Secretary (Home) – Respondent
Criminal Misc. Petition (Main) U/s 482 CRPC No. 366 of 2021
Decided On : 08-09-2021

.

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Indian Penal code, 1860 - Section 498-A, 406, 506 and 34 - Quashing of FIR - Whether FIR in question can be ordered to be quashed when Hon'ble Apex Court has specifically held that power under S. 482 CrPC is not to be exercised in 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 – Held, though offence alleged to have been committed by accused is neither heinous nor serious, and further parties have compromised matter, as such, this court deems it appropriate to quash FIR as well as consequential proceedings, especially keeping in view fact that parties have compromised matter inter se them, in which case, possibility of conviction is remote and no fruitful purpose would be served in continuing with criminal proceedings - Since matter stands compromised between parties and complainant is no more interested in pursuing criminal proceedings against accused, no fruitful purpose would be served in case proceedings initiated at behest of complainant are allowed to continue, as such, prayer made in petition at hand can be accepted - Petitioners are acquitted of charges framed against them in said FIR/proceedings - Petition disposed of.

Catch Words :

Cases Referred:
Dimpey Gujral and Ors. vs. Union Territory through Administrator, UT, Chandigarh and Ors., (2013) 11 SCC 497 - Referred By
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and anr. (2012) 10 SCC 303 - Referred By
Narinder Singh and others versus State of Punjab and another, (2014)6 SCC 466 - Referred By
Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others versus State of Gujarat and Another, Criminal Appeal No.1723 of 2017 arising out of SLP(Crl) No.9549 of 2016 - Referred By
State of Tamil Nadu v R Vasanthi Stanley, (2016) 1 SCC 376 - Referred By

Advocate Appeared :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Hemant Kumar Thakur, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar and Mr. Desh Raj Thakur, Additional Advocates General With Mr. R.P. Singh and Mr. Narinder Thakur, Deputy Advocates General, Mr. Nitish Negi, Advocate

Inder Rajput VS State of Himachal Pradesh through Its Secretary (Home)

ORDER :

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 11.9.202 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 take respondent No.2 to Nalagarh. It is further alleged that petitioner No.1 refused to keep respondent No.2 with him and left her at her mother’s house at Nalagarh. It is alleged that petitioner No.1 asked mother of respondent No.2 to get her checked at Nalagarh 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. In the aforesaid background, FIR, sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings, came to be lodged against the petitioners. Police completed the investigation and filed Challan in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalagarh, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, where matter is pending and now is fixed for 29.11.2021. However, in the meantime, parties have entered into a compromise dated 22.7.2021 (Annexure P-2), whereby respondent No.2 and the

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