Himachal Pradesh High Court
Ayub Ali vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Anr on 21 December, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr. MMO No.1251/2024.
Date of Decision: 21st December, 2024.
Ayub Ali .....Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr. .....Respondents.
Coram
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the Petitioner: Mr. Vinod Chauhan, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. B.N. Sharma, Addl. Advocate
General, for respondent No.1/State.
Mr. Vivek Thakur, Advocate, for
respondent No.2.
Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral).
By way of instant petition filed under Section 528 of the
Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 a prayer has
been made on behalf of the petitioner for quashing of FIR
No.81/22 dated 13.05.2022 under Section 498A of the IPC and
Section 4 of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights On Marriage)
2019 registered at Police Station Majra, Tehsil Paonta Sahib,
District Sirmaur, H.P., as well as consequent proceedings
pending before the learned trial Court.
2. The averments contained in the petition, which is duly
supported by an affidavit reveals that on 13.05.2022
complainant/respondent No.2 had got a FIR registered against
the present petitioner under Section 498A of the IPC and
Section 4 of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights On Marriage)
1
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2
2019. However, during the pendency of proceedings the
dispute inter se parties has been settled amicably vide
compromise deed dated 09.06.2022, copy whereof is appended
along with the present petition as Annexure P-2.
3. Statement of complainant/respondent No.2 stands
recorded. She has categorically stated that she has entered
into compromise of her own free will, volition and without any
pressure. According to the complainant/respondent No.2, the
dispute inter se parties stands amicably settled between the
parties.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record carefully.
5. This Court sees no impediment in quashing the FIR in
issue, as the dispute inter se the parties stands amicably
resolved.
6. From a perusal of Section 359 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, it is evident that insofar as Section
498-A of the IPC, is concerned, the same is not compoundable.
7. In this respect, attention of this Court has been drawn
to a case titled Narinder Singh and others vs. State of
Punjab and another reported as (2014) 6 Supreme Court
Cases, 466, wherein the Apex Court has categorically laid
down that the High Court has inherent power to quash the
criminal proceedings even in those cases, which are not
compoundable, where the parties have amicably settled the
3
matter inter se them. However, this power is to be exercised
sparingly and with caution, in cases where settlement is arrived
at. The guiding factors being securing the ends of justice or to
prevent an abuse of the process of any Court.
8. Further, the Apex Court in Parbatbhai Aahir alias
Parbathbhai Bhimsinghbhai Karmur and others vs. State
of Gujarat and another, (2017) 9 SCC 641 summarizing the
broad principles regarding inherent powers of the High Court
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has recognized that these powers are
not inhibited by provisions of Section 320 Cr.P.C.
9. In view of the fact that the parties have entered into
compromise permitting the proceedings in pursuance to the
aforesaid FIR sought to be quashed to continue would only
result into an abuse of process and the same would not secure
the ends of justice.
10. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. FIR No.81/22 dated
13.05.2022 under Section 498A of the IPC and Section 4 of
Muslim Women (Protection of Rights On Marriage) 2019
registered at Police Station Majra, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, District
Sirmaur, H.P. as well as consequent proceedings pending
before the learned trial Court, are quashed.
The petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so
also the pending application(s), if any.
(Bipin Chander Negi)
Judge
21st December, 2024
(Gaurav Rawat)
[ad_1]
Source link