Case BriefsHigh Courts

Kerala High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of P. Somarajan, J. decided an application filed under Section 482 CrPC, wherein the Court quashed the criminal proceedings pending against the accused persons.

The accused persons were booked for offence under Sections 323, 324, 325, 506 (1), 509, 377, 354, 498 A, 294 (b) and 34 IPC. Accused No. 1 was the husband of the complainant while the other accused persons were her in-laws. The present application was filed to quash the proceedings going on against the accused persons in the criminal case registered for offences as mentioned hereinabove.

The High Court perused the record and found that in the final report it was clearly shown that the parties had arrived at a genuine settlement in mediation exercise as held between them. No bad antecedents were reported against the accused persons. Accused No. 1 and the complainant were living together as husband and wife. In the said circumstances, the Court held that stretching the criminal proceedings further would be a futile exercise and no purpose would be served. Therefore, the criminal proceedings pending against the accused persons under the criminal case referred to above, were quashed. [Dileep v. State of Kerala, 2018 SCC OnLine Ker 1457, order dated 27.4.2018]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Uttaranchal High Court: The FIR registered against the petitioners for offences punishable under Sections 323, 452, 504 and 506 IPC was quashed by a Single Judge Bench of V.K. Bist, J.

The petitioners sought for quashing of the above-mentioned FIR and the proceedings arising therefrom. Affidavits were filed by the respondent and the injured in support of the application by the petitioners. Further, learned counsels for the parties submitted that parties had entered into a compromise and the matter had been amicably settled between them. Also, the respondent did not want to press the case further filed against the petitioners, they were left with no grudges and they wanted to live peacefully in future.

Referring to the Supreme Court decision in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, the High Court held that criminal proceedings can be quashed by the High Court if the Court is satisfied that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and they are interested to restore peace and harmony between them. On the facts of the present case, the Court found that the matter, in fact, had been amicably settled between the parties and therefore the petition deserved to be allowed. Accordingly, the impugned FIR was quashed. [Saurabh Sharma v. State of Uttarakhand,  2018 SCC OnLine Utt 385, order dated 27-04-2018]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Karnataka High Court: A Single Judge bench comprising of John Michael Cunha, J. decided a criminal petition filed under Section 482 CrPC, wherein the Court declined to quash the charge-sheet filed against the petitioner under Sections 417, 201, 504 and 506 of IPC.

The petitioner was accused of offences under the above-mentioned sections. It was alleged that he had regular sexual relation for more than six years with the complainant on the pretext of marrying her. However, the petitioner breached the promise and married someone else and hence, the complainant was constrained to initiate criminal action against him. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the criminal prosecution initiated against the petitioner was ulteriorly motivated. Further, the charge-sheet does not make out any offence against the petitioner. He prayed that the charge-sheet filed against the petitioner may be quashed.

The High Court, after perusing the record and considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties, found that prima facie material was available in proof of the allegations made against the petitioner. The material collected in evidence by the prosecution make out the ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioner. The contentions raised by the counsel for the petitioner had to be considered during course of the trial. The Court held it to be a settled law that the inherent powers under Section 482 should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. From the material available on record it could not be said that the prosecution initiated against the petitioner was either false, vexatious or an abuse of the process of court.

In such circumstances, the Court declined to grant relief as prayed for by the petitioner and the petition was accordingly dismissed. [Kiran v. State of Karnataka, Crl. Petition No. 102483 of 2017, dated 16.04.2018]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Tripura High Court: While deciding upon the present writ petition wherein the petitioner’s appointment in Group- D post was cancelled by the respondents (High Court of Tripura) on the ground of an FIR registered against him, the Division Bench of Ajay Rastogi, C.J., and S. Talapatra,J., held that the FIR once registered has been quashed by the Court under Section 482 of Cr.PC, no inference can be drawn to impute any adverse antecedents which in any manner may deprive an individual from seeking public employment.

As per the facts, the petitioner was duly selected in Group D post. However the petitioner’s selection was cancelled owing to the fact that an FIR was registered against him under Sections 3,4,5,6(2)(4) & 7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. Th petitioner challenged the FIR and it was subsequently quashed by this Court in exercise of its powers under Section 482 of CrPC. Yet even after the quashment, the respondents refused to consider the petitioner’s appointment on the ground that his conduct does not generate confidence for employment in the service of the High Court. The petitioner argued that there was no misrepresentation on his part and the FIR against him was a result of false implication; and once this Court has quashed the FIR, the petitioner had a clean record again. Therefore there was no ground upon which he could be denied employment. The petitioner via his counsel Raju Datta, contended that the act of the respondents in rejecting the petitioner’s employment, was arbitrary, therefore it demands judicial interference. Counsel for the respondents contended that mere selection and offer of appointment does not confer any vested right and the decision of the authority cannot be said to be per se arbitrary.

Upon perusal of the issue and facts, the Court observed that Rule 9 of High Court of Tripura Services (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Conduct) Rules, 2014 prescribe certain disqualifications for appointment and sub-rule (c) of Rule 9 clearly envisages that if one has been convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude could be a reason for disqualification for appointment. However in the present case, the FIR was found to be fabricated, hence quashed. Other than the quashed FIR, there is no criminal history of the petitioner which could render him disqualified for public employment. The Court thus directed the respondents to not to draw any adverse inference to implicate the petitioner, and consider his candidature for appointment in Group D post. [Tapas Chakraborty v. High Court of Tripura, 2018 SCC OnLine Tri 57, decided on 10-04-2018]

Bail Application
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Himachal Pradesh High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Ajay Mohan Goel, J., decided a criminal petition filed under Section 482 of CrPC, wherein the FIR and proceedings arising thereunder against the petitioners were quashed in light of settlement between the parties.

FIR was registered against the petitioners under Sections 420, 465, 467, 469, 471, 406 and 120-B of IPC. It was submitted that the issue which led to registration of the FIR stood amicably settled between the parties. The complainant company too submitted before the court that it had no issue if the said FIR and the proceedings arising thereunder are quashed by the Court, as they have settled the matter with the petitioners.

The High Court perused the record and held that it was a fit case to exercise its inherent powers in favour of the petitioners. The complainant company did not have any objection if the petition was allowed. The matter stood settled between the parties already. It was held that it was in the interest of justice if the said FIR and the proceedings arising thereunder were quashed. The Court ordered accordingly. [Pankaj Gupta v. State of H.P.,  2018 SCC OnLine HP 425, dated 11.4.2018]

Bail Application
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Himachal Pradesh High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Sandeep Sharma, J., decided a criminal petition filed under Section 482 CrPC, wherein the criminal proceedings pending against the appellants were quashed in the light of settlement between the parties.

The appellants were accused under Sections 147, 149, 323, 506, 452, 427, and 382 IPC. The case arose out of scuffle between appellants and the respondents. Parties to the case submitted before the Court that they have amicably compromised the matter and the concerned FIR and proceedings arising therefrom may be quashed.

The question before the Court was whether it can quash criminal proceedings in light of settlement between the parties. The Court referred to various decisions of the Supreme Court and observed that inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of CrPC are different from power to compound offence under Section 320. Under Section 482, the High Court has inherent power to quash criminal proceedings if the parties have settled the matter, even in those cases which are not compoundable. However, such power is to be exercised sparingly and with great caution. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, wherein the parties have amicably settled the matter among themselves and such compromise being found genuine, the Court held that it was a fit case where the FIR and proceedings arising therefrom, were liable to be quashed.

Hence, the petition was allowed and the FIR and criminal proceedings arising therefrom pending adjudication before the trial court, were quashed. [Rajesh Thakur v. Hem Chand, 2018 SCC OnLine HP 336, dated 27.3.2018]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Punjab and Haryana High Court: FIR in cross cases filed between the contesting parties was quashed by a Single Judge Bench comprising of Mahabir Singh Sindhu, J., on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties.

The petitioner and the respondent, both, filed an FIR and cross cases against each other under Section 323 read with Section 34 of IPC in relation to an occurrence of a cross fight between them. In an earlier order passed by the High Court, the parties were directed to appear before the trial Court and get their statements recorded. After recording of such statements, learned Judicial Magistrate submitted his report, the perusal of which revealed that the parties had entered into a compromise in relation to the said incident.

The High Court found that the contents of the report submitted by the learned Judicial Magistrate showed that the said compromise was genuine, voluntary and without coercion or undue influence. The Court also gave due regard to the contention of the parties that since they have reached an amicable compromise between themselves, they should be given an opportunity to live peacefully. The Court observed that the injuries caused in the incident were not on vital parts of the body. None of the parties raised any objection regarding the quashing of FIR/cross-case in question. Hence, the High Court was of the view that it would be in the interest of justice that the parties were allowed to compromise the matter as the continuance of prosecution would be an exercise in futility.

In view of the above, the FIR, its cross version and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom were quashed. [Dalvinder Singh alias Bindri v. State of Punjab, 2018 SCC OnLine P&H 140, order dated 30-1-2018]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Bombay High Court: Considering the reply filed by the second respondent in the present case, the Division Bench comprising of V. M Kanade and Nutan Sardessai, JJ., ordered the  quashment of  the criminal complaint filed against the applicant under Sections 376, 323, 504 and 506 of the IPC. In the present case, the second respondent alleged that the applicant had physical relations with her by obtaining her consent on a false promise; however later on, the second respondent filed an affidavit mentioning her condition of depression stating that in consequence of the insecurity she felt, she filed a complaint against the applicant.

The Court relying on the ratio laid down in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, held that, though the complaint filed under Section 376 of the IPC is a punishable offence, but in view of the reply filed by the second respondent, it would not constitute an offence, thereby quashing the criminal complaint. [Manteshwar Hanumantrao Kattimani v. State of Maharashtra, 2016 SCC OnLine Bom 10581 , decided on 2-12-2016 ]