Case BriefsHigh Courts

Himachal Pradesh High Court: Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. set aside trial court’s order and remanded back the present application to decide afresh, taking into consideration the issue of whether the owner of a vehicle in police custody, can be asked only to deposit an amount or security as well, as a condition precedent to release of the seized vehicle.

The learned counsels for the petitioner, Anup Rattan, and Ritika Jassal, questioned the legality of the order passed by the lower court and put forth the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Jai Prakash v. National Insurance Company Ltd., (2010) 2 SCC 607 wherein it was held that an owner of an uninsured vehicle in custody, shall be directed to offer a security or deposit the amount, adequate to satisfy the award, which will be eventually passed. They also put forth that the petitioner was running the vehicle as a taxi and hence he was not in a position to deposit the amount. The learned counsels for the respondents, Shiv Pal Manhans and Raju Ram Rahi, contended that the lower court order needed no interference as the vehicle was not insured.

The High Court took into consideration the facts that the vehicle was not insured and it had met with an accident hence it was seized. The Court relied on the judgment of Jai Prakash case and took note of the fact that the lower court erred in its order by only directing the petitioner to pay the deposit. The Court thereby remanded the application to the lower court for deciding the same afresh “taking into consideration the factum with regard to security and pass an appropriate order after taking into consideration the averment, whether furnishing of the security will meet the ends of justice, as prayed for, or not.” [Manish Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh, Cr. MMO No. 81 of 2019, decided on 07-05-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Himachal Pradesh High Court: Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. allowed a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of FIR registered for offences under Sections 498-A and 506 of the Penal Code, 1860, on the ground that parties had entered into a compromise.

In the present case, the petitioner-husband and respondent-wife were married according to Hindu rites. After five years of their marriage, the wife left her matrimonial home and went to live with her parents in Shimla. She later filed an FIR under Sections 498-A and 502 of IPC against the husband. However, the parties later entered into a compromise and in order to maintain their cordial relation, they did not want to pursue cases against each other. Thus, the present petition was filed by the husband under Section 482 of CrPC requesting the court to quash the FIR filed against him along with the cases based upon it.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, R. L. Verma, contended that as the parties have compromised the matter, no purpose would be served by keeping the matter alive, hence the FIR, along with the subsequent proceedings should be quashed by the Court.

Learned counsel for the respondent, Dinesh Bhatia, prayed that the petition may be allowed in view of the compromise arrived between the parties.

The Court relied upon the judgment in Jitendra Raghuvanshi v. Babita Raghuvanshi, (2013) 4 SCC 58 where it was held that even in non-compoundable offences pertaining to matrimonial disputes, if Court is satisfied that parties have settled the disputes amicably and without any pressure, then for purpose of securing ends of justice, FIR/complaint or subsequent criminal proceedings in respect of offences can be quashed.

In view of the above, the petition was allowed and FIR against petitioner, along with its subsequent proceedings, was quashed.[Dharmender Mathur v. State of H.P., 2019 SCC OnLine HP 585, decided on 08-05-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Jharkhand High Court: The Bench of  Deepak Roshan, J. allowed a petition insofar as it modifies the sentenced to undergo the imprisonment for the period already undergone him. 

In the present case the petitioner was found guilty for the offence under Section 3(a) of Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 2 years and also directed to pay a fine of Rs 2000 and in default of payment of fine, he was further directed to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he remained in custody for nearly one year and eight months and he has already suffered much as such some leniency may be accorded to the petitioner.

The Court held that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all shadow of reasonable doubts. But the fact that the petitioner remained in custody for more than one and a half years and the case is pending since 1994, has certainly made the petitioner suffer who remained in custody. Therefore, the Court found it “expedient in the interest of justice that the order of sentence already undergone will suffice for the ends of justice for the alleged offence”.[Fahim Khan v. State of Jharkhand, 2019 SCC OnLine Jhar 457, decided on 03-05-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. allowed a petition for quashing of an FIR registered under Section 498-A, 406 and 34 IPC.

The petitioner, who was the complainant in the above said FIR, contended that she had reconciled her disputed with the respondents- her husband and his family– and had started residing with them. She was present in-person before the Court and submitted that if the said FIR continued, it may cause disruption to her family life once again. As such, she approached the Court for quashing the said FIR.

The High Court, on considering the submissions, held that keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the complainant herself approached the Court for quashing of the subject FIR in the interest of protecting her family ties, continuation of criminal proceedings would be an exercise in futility; and justice in the case demanded that the dispute between parties be put to an end and peace restored. Furthermore, securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor, the Court held that it would be expedient to quash the subject FIR and the consequent proceedings emanating therefrom. The petition was allowed accordingly. [Pooja Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi),2018 SCC OnLine Del 12040, dated 23-10-2018]