Back
2016 Supreme(HP) 267
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
P.S. Rana, J.
Manish Kumar and Another – Petitioners
Vs.
State of Himachal Pradesh and Others – Non-Petitioners
Cr. MMO No. 344 of 2015
Decided On : 06-04-2016
For the Petitioner:Mr. Sanjeev K. Suri, Advocate.
For the Non-Petitioner:Mr. M.L. Chauhan, Additional Advocate General.
The court has inherent powers under Section 482 to allow the compounding of criminal cases, especially in matrimonial disputes where the parties have reconciled.
Headnote:
Section 482 - Criminal Procedure - Compounding of Offence
Fact of the Case:
The complainant filed a case under Sections 498A, 504 IPC against the accused. The accused filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking permission to compound the case.
Finding of the Court:
The court accepted the petition, considering the complainant's statement that she was residing with the accused and had no objection to the petition. The court found the dispute to be a matrimonial one and granted permission to compound the case.
Issues: Whether the petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for compounding the case should be accepted.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the nature of the dispute, the statements of the complainant and the accused, and the principles established in previous cases to determine whether to allow the compounding of the case.
Final Decision: The court granted permission to compound the criminal case and quashed the proceedings, acquitting the accused.
1. Present petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 read with Section 320 of code of criminal procedure for permission to compound Criminal Case No. 264-I-10/96-II/2010 title State of HP vs. Nirmla Devi and Others.
Brief facts of the case:
2. Complainant Kusum Lata @ Veena Kumari filed FIR No. 114 of 2010 dated 8.6.2010 under Sections 498A, 504 IPC read with Section 32 IPC against accused persons. Matter was investigated by investigating agency and investigation report under Section 173 Cr. PC filed before competent court of law. Thereafter competent court of law framed charge against accused persons under Sections 498A, 504 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and listed the case for prosecution evidence. Thereafter accused persons filed present petition.
3. Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioners and learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of non-petitioners No. 1, 2 and 4. Court also heard complainant Kusum Lata @ Veena Kumari and also perused entire record carefully.
4. Following points arise for determination in present petition:
(1) Whether petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 read with Section 320 code of criminal procedure is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of petition?
(2) Final Order.
Finding upon point No. 1 with reasons.
5. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioners that permission to compound present case while exercising inherent powers be granted in the ends of justice is accepted for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Complainant Smt. Kusum Lata appeared before the Court and her statement recorded. Smt. Kusum Lata complainant has stated in positive manner that as of today she is residing with her husband Manish Kumar accused and she has no objection if petition is allowed. Statement of co-accused Manish Kumar also recorded. Co-accused Manish Kumar has stated that complainant Smt. Kusum Lata is his wife and she is residing with him and they have compromised the matter in order to keep cordial relations.
6. It was held in case reported in Narinder Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab and Another, JT 2014 (4) SC 573 that following criminal cases should not be allowed to be compromised on the basis of out of court settlement while exercising inherent powers under Section 482 code of criminal procedure (1) Murder case (2) Rape case (3) Dacoity case (4) Prevention of Corruption Act case (5) 307 IPC case It was further held that following criminal cases should be allowed to be compromised on the basis of out of court settlement while exercising inherent powers under section 482 code of criminal procedure. (1) Commercial transaction case (2) Matrimonial disputes case (3) Family disputes case. Court is of the opinion that present dispute inter se parties is matrimonial dispute. Complainant Smt. Kusum Lata has herself appeared before Court and she has stated that she is residing with co-accused Manish Kumar as of today. Statement of Smt. Kusum Lata is also corroborated by coaccused Manish Kumar. In view of the fact that complainant Smt. Kusum Lata and co-accused Manish Kumar are living peacefully in harmonious manner as husband and wife court is of the opinion that it is expedient in the ends of justice to allow present petition. Point No. 1 is answered in affirmative.
Point No. 2 (Final Order).
7. In view of findings on point No. 1 permission to compound Criminal Case No. 264-I-10/96-II-10 registered under Section 498A, 504 read with Section 34 IPC is granted while exercising inherent powers under Section 482 read with section 320 code of criminal procedure in the ends of justice. Proceedings of Criminal Case No. 264-I-10/96-II-10 title State of HP vs. Nirmla Devi and Others quashed and accused persons are acquitted qua criminal offence punishable under Section 498A, 504 read with Section 34 IPC. Statement of complainant Smt. Kusum Lata and statement of co-accuse
