"Petty Offences, Do Not Involve Moral Turpitude": Himachal Pradesh High Court Quashes FIR U/S 354, 498A IPC Based On Compromise

In the instant case, the Petitioner, i.e., the Husband and Respondent, i.e., the Wife had certain differences between them after the marriage, due to which the husband and wife started living separately. Later, an FIR was lodged at the behest of the respondent, wherein she alleged that she is constantly harassed and tortured by her husband and other family members on account of bringing less dowry.

After completion of the investigation, police presented challan in the competent court of law, but before same could be taken to its logical end, parties to the lis resolved to settle their dispute amicably inter-se them by way of compromise placed on record.

The Respondent, along with her counsel stated that she has entered into compromise with the petitioner-accused without any pressure. The counsel for the state submitted that no fruitful purpose would be served in case FIR sought to be quashed as well as consequent proceedings pending before the court below are allowed to sustain.

Findings –

The court relied on the judgment passed by Apex Court in Narinder Singh and others versus State of Punjab and another [(2014) 6 Supreme Court Cases 466], where the court formulated guidelines for accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings and stated that.

It was held therein that those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominantly 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.

It was also held that while exercising powers under Section 482 CrPC, Courts must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime and its social impact.

"It is quite apparent from the aforesaid exposition of law that High Court has inherent power to quash criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, but such power is to be exercised sparingly and with great caution...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," the High Court noted.

It also expounded the difference in scope of powers under Section 320 CrPC and Section 482 CrPC. The former prescribes power of a Criminal Court for compounding offences whereas, the latter contemplates "inherent power" to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. 

In the present case also, the Court noted that since the matter stands compromised between the parties and they are no more interested in pursuing the criminal proceedings against each other, no fruitful purpose would be served in case criminal proceedings are allowed to continue.

 Accordingly, the present petition filed was accepted and FIR and all subsequent proceedings arising out against the accused were quashed and set-aside.

Case Title: Ajay Kumar v. State Of Punjab And Another

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (HP) 2