Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 42 views

    Hira Vs State

    Uploaded by

    Satyendra Chauhan
    1) Hira Lal and others filed a petition seeking to quash an FIR registered under sections 498A, 406, and 34 of the IPC and section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 2) The complainant/first informant, respondent no. 2, was present in court and submitted that the dispute with her husband, petitioner no. 1, had been resolved and they had been living happily together for the past three years. 3) Noting the reconciliation between the parties and that no useful purpose would be served by continuing the legal proceedings, the court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR and criminal proceedings.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Hira Vs State

    Uploaded by

    Satyendra Chauhan
    42 views6 pages
    1) Hira Lal and others filed a petition seeking to quash an FIR registered under sections 498A, 406, and 34 of the IPC and section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 2) The complainant/first informant, respondent no. 2, was present in court and submitted that the dispute with her husband, petitioner no. 1, had been resolved and they had been living happily together for the past three years. 3) Noting the reconciliation between the parties and that no useful purpose would be served by continuing the legal proceedings, the court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR and criminal proceedings.

    Original Description:

    judgment

    Original Title

    Hira vs State

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Hira Lal and others filed a petition seeking to quash an FIR registered under sections 498A, 406, and 34 of the IPC and section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 2) The complainant/first informant, respondent no. 2, was present in court and submitted that the dispute with her husband, petitioner no. 1, had been resolved and they had been living happily together for the past three years. 3) Noting the reconciliation between the parties and that no useful purpose would be served by continuing the legal proceedings, the court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR and criminal proceedings.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    42 views6 pages

    Hira Vs State

    Uploaded by

    Satyendra Chauhan
    1) Hira Lal and others filed a petition seeking to quash an FIR registered under sections 498A, 406, and 34 of the IPC and section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 2) The complainant/first informant, respondent no. 2, was present in court and submitted that the dispute with her husband, petitioner no. 1, had been resolved and they had been living happily together for the past three years. 3) Noting the reconciliation between the parties and that no useful purpose would be served by continuing the legal proceedings, the court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR and criminal proceedings.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    You are on page 1of 6

    I-33

    *
    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
    Date of Decision: 3rd July, 2015
    +

    CRL.M.C. 2602/2015 & Crl.M.A.No. 9286/2015


    HIRA LAL & ORS.
    Through:

    ..... Petitioners
    Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Advocate

    versus
    STATE & ANR.
    Through:

    ..... Respondent
    Mr. Navin Sharma, Additional
    Public Prosecutor for respondentState SI Dinesh
    Respondent No.2 in person

    CORAM:
    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
    JUDGMENT
    (ORAL)

    Quashing of FIR No.210/2012, under Sections 498-A/406/34 of


    IPC and under Section 4 of The Dowry Prohibition Act, registered at
    police station Jyoti Nagar, Delhi is sought on the ground that petitioner
    No.1-husband and respondent No.2-wife are happily living together for
    last three years.
    Notice.
    Mr. Navin Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for
    respondent-State accepts notice and submits that respondent No.2, present
    in the Court, has been identified to be the complainant/first-informant of
    the FIR in question by SI Dinesh on the basis of identity proof produced
    Crl.M.C.No.2602/2015 Page 1

    by her.
    Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State submits on
    instructions that the trial of this FIR case has not yet begun.
    Respondent No.2, present in the Court, submits that the dispute
    between the parties has been amicably resolved and she is living together
    happily with petitioner No.1-husband for last three years. Respondent
    No.2 further submits that now the misunderstanding, which led to
    registration of the FIR in question, stands cleared amongst the parties and
    she affirms the contents of her affidavit of 29th June, 2015 supporting this
    petition and submits that now no dispute with petitioners survives and to
    restore cordiality between the parties, the proceedings arising out of the
    FIR in question be brought to an end.
    In Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303, Apex
    Court has recognized the need of amicable resolution of disputes in cases
    like the instant one, by observing as under:61.In other words, the High Court must consider
    whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of
    justice to continue with the criminal proceedings
    or
    continuation of criminal proceedings would tantamount to
    abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise
    between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure
    the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put
    to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the
    affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction
    to quash the criminal proceedings.
    The aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court in a
    recent judgment in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466.
    Crl.M.C.No.2602/2015 Page 2

    The pertinent observations of the Apex Court in Narinder Singh (Supra)


    are as under:29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and
    lay down the following principles by which the High Court
    would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement
    between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482
    of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the
    proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction
    to continue with the criminal proceedings:
    29.1 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 the criminal proceedings even in those
    cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have
    settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is
    to be exercised sparingly and with caution.
    29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that
    basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the
    guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:
    (i) ends of justice, or
    (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court.
    While exercising the power the High Court is to form an
    opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.
    29.3. Such a power is not to 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 the 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.
    Crl.M.C.No.2602/2015 Page 3

    29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases having


    overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly
    those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of
    matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed
    when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among
    themselves.
    29.5. While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine
    as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak
    and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to
    great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be
    caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases.
    29.6. Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category
    of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be
    generally treated as crime against the society and not against
    the individual alone. However, the High Court would not rest
    its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307
    IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It
    would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether
    incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or
    the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if
    proved, would lead to proving the charge under Section 307
    IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go
    by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is
    inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of
    weapons used, etc. Medical report in respect of injuries
    suffered by the victim can generally be the guiding factor. On
    the basis of this prima facie analysis, the High Court can
    examine as to whether there is a strong possibility of conviction
    or the chances of conviction are remote and bleak. In the
    former case it can refuse to accept the settlement and quash the
    criminal proceedings whereas in the latter case it would be
    permissible for the High Court to accept the plea compounding
    the offence based on complete settlement between the parties.
    Crl.M.C.No.2602/2015 Page 4

    At this stage, the Court can also be swayed by the fact that the
    settlement between the parties is going to result in harmony
    between them which may improve their future relationship.
    29.7. While deciding whether to exercise its power under
    Section 482 of the Code or not, timings of settlement play a
    crucial role. Those cases where the settlement is arrived at
    immediately after the alleged commission of offence and the
    matter is still under investigation, the High Court may be
    liberal in accepting the settlement to quash the criminal
    proceedings/investigation. It is because of the reason that at
    this stage the investigation is still on and even the charge-sheet
    has not been filed. Likewise, those cases where the charge is
    framed but the evidence is yet to start or the evidence is still at
    infancy stage, the High Court can show benevolence in
    exercising its powers favourably, but after prima facie
    assessment of the circumstances/material mentioned above. On
    the other hand, where the prosecution evidence is almost
    complete or after the conclusion of the evidence the matter is at
    the stage of argument, normally the High Court should refrain
    from exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code, as in
    such cases the trial court would be in a position to decide the
    case finally on merits and to come to a conclusion as to
    whether the offence under Section 307 IPC is committed or not.
    Similarly, in those cases where the conviction is already
    recorded by the trial court and the matter is at the appellate
    stage before the High Court, mere compromise between the
    parties would not be a ground to accept the same resulting in
    acquittal of the offender who has already been convicted by the
    trial court. Here charge is proved under Section 307 IPC and
    conviction is already recorded of a heinous crime and,
    therefore, there is no question of sparing a convict found guilty
    of such a crime.
    In the facts and circumstances of this case and in view of the fact
    Crl.M.C.No.2602/2015 Page 5

    that petitioner No.1-husband and respondent No.2-wife are happily living


    together, no fruitful purpose would be served in continuing with the
    proceedings arising out of FIR in question.
    Accordingly, this petition is allowed and FIR No.210/2012, under
    Sections 498-A/406/34 of IPC and under Section 4 of The Dowry
    Prohibition Act, registered at police station Jyoti Nagar, Delhi and the
    proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed. However, it is made clear
    that if marriage of respondent No.2 with petitioner No.1-husband again
    runs into rough weather, then this order will not stand in her way to have
    recourse to law.
    This petition and application are accordingly disposed of.

    (SUNIL GAUR)
    JUDGE
    JULY 03, 2015
    r

    Crl.M.C.No.2602/2015 Page 6

    You might also like