Mahinder Pal Gupta and Others vs State of Haryana and Others

Raj Mohan Singh, J—Petitioners seek quashing of FIR No. 181 dated 13.10.2011, registered under Sections 498-A, 406, 506, 504, 307, 323, 34 IPC at P.S. Sadar Sirsa, along with entire subsequent proceedings on the basis of compromise.

Contents of the FIR are as under:-

"Complainant made complaint against accused No. 1 Mahender Pal Gupta S/o. Rulia Ram Gupta 2. Vishwas Gupta S/o. Mahender Pal Gupta 3. Urmila Gupta w/o. Mahender Pal Gupta all resident of Enaiyat Satguru Complex, Sirsa at present Resident of H. No. 32, Sector 15, Panchkula for lodging FIR against them. Complainant prayed as:- 1. That she is presently residing with her parent in flat No. A23 Shah Satnam Ji Nagar, Sirsa Police Station Sirsa District Sirsa (Haryana). Her father is a shop keeper and dealing in the trading tyres etc. 2. That her marriage was solemnized with the accused No. 2 Vishwas Gupta as per Hindu Custom and ceremony on dated 14.2.99. Sh. Mahender Pal Gupta accused No. 1 is father of accused No. 2 Vishwas Gupta and accused No. 3 Urmila is mother of accused No. 2 Vishwas Gupta. All the accused persons were residing at Enaiyat Satguru Complex, Sirsa, P.S. Sirsa. 3. That on the day of marriage i.e. on 14.2.99 the accused 1, 2, 3 demanded Rs. 2 lacs cash as dowry for the marriage and Tata Safari Car and other dowry items i.e. Fridge, sofa, dining table, sewing machine and washing machine from her father Sh. Rama Nand. As the demand was raised at 11th hours of the solemnization of the marriage her father had to agree to the demand of dowry made by the accused No. 1 to 3 in consideration of marriage but her father showed his inability to give the car and assured that the car would be given later on. At the time of marriage her father handed over Rs. 2 lacs to accused No. 1 and entrusted all the dowry article to accused No. 1 and 2 and the ornaments of about 50 tolas gold were entrusted to accused No. 3 by her father as Istridhan of the complainant. 4. That at the time of marriage on dated 14.02.1999 the relative of the complainant were present when the demand of dowry was raised by all the accused person and at the time of handing over/entrusting the dowry articles to all the accused persons as mentioned above. 5. That the accused No. 1 to 3 are very greedy persons and despite the facts her father gave the dowry as demanded by all the three accused except a Car, even then the accused persons were not satisfied with the dowry given to them in consideration of marriage. After the marriage i.e. on the next day of marriage i.e. on 15.2.1999 in the morning itself the accused No. 1 to 3 taunted her that her father is a misorman though he is very rich person even then has not given the car in dowry. It was a daily routine that accused No. 1 to 3 started harassing and humiliating the complainant for giving insufficient dowry to them at the time of marriage by her father. 6. that the accused No. 2 her husband and the mother in law accused No. 3 of the complainant used to slap her on one pretext or the other on every occasion/festival the accused No. 3 used to abuse and humiliate the complainant for not bringing money and other valuable items as gift to the accused persons though her parents used to give valuable gold ornaments as gift as per their capacity. 7. That on the 4.11.2002 at about 4 PM on the day of Diwali she was mercilessly beaten by giving fist blows by the accused No. 1 and 2 as she had refused to ask her father to pay Rs. 1 lac as gift on the occasion of Diwali. She told about this occurrence of beating to her parents and respectable persons of the society to bear the excess by the accused person and save her matrimonial life. 8. That the harassment and humiliation for not giving the car in dowry continued and she used to bear all this in order to save her matrimonial house. Her father alongwith master Raj Kingra, Ashok Ratia came to the house of her in-laws and tried to make the accused No. 1, to 3 understand about their financial position and inability to give car to the accused No. 1 and 2 in the presence of Panchayat. The accused No. 1 and 2 agreed not to harass and humiliate the complainant but after a week all the three accused again started taunting, humiliating and harassing her for not giving the car in dowry. Unfortunately, no child was born to her with the lions of accused No. 2. This also added the fuel to the fire and accused persons started demanding more money and car from her and her parents and this harassment and humiliation continued and increased day by day. In the year 2007, the accused persons constructed a house. On 4.4.2007 also the accused No. 1 and 2 demanded Rs. 10 lakh from her father but her father refused to pay any money to the accused persons. Ultimately her father and mother alongwith Ram Singh, Chairman, Raj Kingra, Rakesh Ratia went to the house of accused persons and again requested them to keep her properly and not to harass and humiliate her and not to demand any money/car/dowry. In the presence of Panchayat, the accused persons felt sorry for their misconduct and assured not to repeat the same. But despite that behavior of all the accused persons continued to be the same towards her. On 16 & 17-08-2010, a Panchayat was convened consisting of Sharan Dass, Sukhdev Singh, Ram Singh, Raja Singh and other and affidavit were exchanged and a compromise has been written, all the three original documents were handed over to Ram Singh-Chairman of Aspal Kalan and the complainant and the accused persons parted their ways. When the facts of separation and cruelty and demand of dowry by accused persons come to the notice of the Guruji Sant Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh Ji Insane (hereinafter referred to Guruji), he called the parents of the complainant and all the three accused persons and persuaded both the parties to reunite and not to spoil their matrimonial life. In order to save the matrimonial life the Guruji declared the complainant as his daughter and accused No. 2 as his son in law and the earlier compromise for separation was undone. Despite all the behavior and the lust for money of the accused No. 1, 2 and 3 increased and they started demanding money from her father mercilessly and accused No. 1 and 2 forced her to sign numerous blank papers, printed papers and kept the same with them and thrown her out of their house in three clothes and finally said that she would come back only with a brand new Toyata Fortuner car. The entire Istridhan and the dowry articles were kept by the accused persons and were not even returned despite the demand raised by her. The complainant alongwith her parents and alongwith above Ram Singh, Raj Kingra, Rakesh Ratia met Guruji and apprised him of the latest situation and the conduct of all the three accused. Guruji called all the three accused in the Panchayat and they were snubbed and reprimanded in the presence of Panchayat for their greed of money and demand of car. All the three persons felt humiliated in public and there after on 14.07.2011 the accused persons took the complainant to her matrimonial home on the next day i.e. 15.7.2011 at about 10.00 a.m. Accused No. 1 and 2 caught hold of her from her hands and accused No. 3 tried to strangulate with an intention to kill Her. She raised hue and cry and on hearing her noise, Sandeep son of Santokh Singh, Guard came there and rescued her life. All the three accused in one voice said that today you have been saved, they will kill her as she has humiliated them in the public. They started abusing Guruji also and they thrown the her out of the house and did not return the dowry articles including gold ornaments etc. On 16.7.2011 the accused persons left Sirsa and started residing at Panchkula. That on 5.10.2011 at the about 11.00 am she received telephonic call from Dharampal, Vijay that there is a news reported in the various news paper, Punjab Kesri, Amar Ujala Dainik Jagran, Hindustan Times, Ajit and Dainik Bhaskar regarding her sexual relationship with Guruji and they warned her not to enter their house. 9. That on date 5.10.2011 at 9.30 pm the accused No. 1 and 2 levelled allegations of sexual relationship of her with Guruji live on the news channel-India TV. The news papers were circulated and the TV programme was telecast throughout India. The allegations/imputation in the news papers and in news channel by the accused No. 1 and 2 with an intention and knowledge that these false allegations of sexual relationship will harm the reputation of the complainant and her family in the eyes of general public. The above mentioned allegations levelled by accused No. 1 and 2 in the news papers and TV channels are false even to the knowledge of the accused No. 1 and 2. The above mentioned allegations which have been widely published by print and electronic media mentioned above have defamed the complainant and her family and had lowered down the reputation of the complainant and her family in the estimation of general public including Vijay, Dharampal, Sampooran Singh etc. The news papers clipping and CD of programme of India TV mentioned above are hereby attached herewith. 10. That due to the ill health of her father and due to humiliation/defamation of her family the complainant could not lodge the FIR against the accused persons till date. It is therefore respectfully prayed that an FIR may pleased be registered against accused No. 1 Mahonder Pal Gupta s/o. Rulia Ram Gupta 2. Vishwas Gupta s/o. Mahonder Pal Gupta 3. Urmila Gupta w/o. Mahonder Pal Gupta. All resident of Enaiyat E Satguru Complex Sirsa at present resident of House No. 32, Sector 15 Panchkula and put them behind the bars forthwith and they be got punished.

On the basis of complainant made by the complainant formal FIR was recorded.

As per allegations in the FIR there was alleged incident of strangulation about three months back. The matter was not reported to the Police. No opinion has come on record.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that matrimonial discord between the parties ultimately resulted in filing petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce with mutual consent. First motion was recorded on 17.09.2014. Parties have mutually decided to part ways.

The extent and sweep of inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing criminal prosecution on merits as well as on the basis of compromise between the accused and the victim remained question of interpretation since long. The Hon''ble Apex Court after due consideration of judgments in Madhu Limaye Vs. The State of Maharashtra, AIR 1978 SC 47 : (1978) CriLJ 165 : (1977) 4 SCC 551 : (1978) SCC(Cri) 10 : (1978) 1 SCR 749 : (1977) 9 UJ 733 , State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604 : (1992) CriLJ 527 : (1990) 4 JT 650 : (1990) 2 SCALE 1066 : (1992) 1 SCC 335 Supp : (1990) 3 SCR 259 Supp and State of Karnataka Vs. L. Muniswamy and Others, AIR 1977 SC 1489 : (1977) CriLJ 1125 : (1977) 2 SCC 699 : (1977) 3 SCR 113 , has summed up the controversy in State, through Special Cell, New Delhi Vs. Navjot Sandhu @ Afshan Guru and Others, (2003) 4 JT 605 : (2003) 4 SCALE 629 : (2003) 6 SCC 641 : (2003) 1 SCR 130 Supp : (2003) 2 UJ 1233 . The legal position summed up in the said judgment is in the following manner:-

"Thus, the law is that Article 227 of the Constitution of India gives the High Court the power of superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. This jurisdiction cannot be limited or fettered by any Act of the State Legislature. The supervisory jurisdiction extends to keeping the subordinate tribunals within the limits of their authority and to seeing that they obey the law. The powers under Article 227 are wide and can be used, to meet the ends of justice. They can be used to interfere even with an interlocutory order. However, the power under Article 227 is a discretionary power and it is difficult to attribute to an order of the High Court, such a source of power, when the High Court itself does not in terms purport to exercise any such discretionary power. It is settled law that this power of judicial superintendence, under Article 227, must be exercised sparingly and only to keep subordinate courts and tribunals within the bound of their authority and not to correct mere errors. Further, where the statute bans the exercise of revisional powers it would require very exceptional circumstances to warrant interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India since the power of superintendence was not meant to circumvent statutory law. It is settled law that the jurisdiction under Article 227 could not be exercised "as the cloak of an appeal in disguise.

Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code starts with the words "Nothing in this Code". Thus the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code can be exercised even when there is a bar under Section 397 or some other provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. However, as is set out in Satya Narayan Sharma''s case (supra) this power cannot be exercised if there is a statutory bar in some other enactment. If the order assailed is purely of an interlocutory character, which could be corrected in exercise of revisional powers or appellate powers the High Court must refuse to exercise its inherent power. The inherent power is to be used only in cases where there is an abuse of the process of the Court or where interference is absolutely necessary for securing the ends of justice. The inherent power must be exercised very sparingly as cases which require interference would be few and far between. The most common case where inherent jurisdiction is generally exercised is where criminal proceedings are required to be quashed because they are initiated illegally, vexatiously or without jurisdiction. Most of the cases set out herein above fall in this category. It must be remembered that the inherent power is not to be resorted to if there is a specific provision in the Code or any other enactment for redress of the grievance of the aggrieved party. This power should not be exercised against an express bar of law engrafted in any other provision of the Criminal Procedure Code. This power cannot be exercised as against an express bar in some other enactment."

Full Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Another, (2007) 4 CTC 769 : (2007) 3 RCR(Criminal) 1052 considered the scope of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to hold that High Court has powers to quash prosecution in order to achieve ends of justice and to prevent abuse of process of law. These powers are not limited to matrimonial disputes alone, rather these powers are unlimited. However these powers are to be exercised very sparingly and with utmost care and caution. There is no statutory bar which can affect the inherent powers of High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is to be exercised Ex-Debito Justitiae to prevent abuse of process of Court.

In State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604 : (1992) CriLJ 527 : (1990) 4 JT 650 : (1990) 2 SCALE 1066 : (1992) 1 SCC 335 Supp : (1990) 3 SCR 259 Supp powers of High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., were considered by the Hon''ble Apex Court within certain parameters and guidelines. It was held that such powers should be exercised either to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Possibly there cannot be any defined and channelised mechanism to formalise exhaustive list of cases wherein such powers should be exercised. Still the Hon''ble Apex Court categorised the cases by way of illustration wherein such powers could be exercised on both the aforesaid analogies of preventing abuse of process of law and to secure ends of justice.

"1. Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."

In exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., criminal proceedings are not to be quashed where the offence is heinous in nature. Proceedings can only be quashed where the issue is overwhelmingly and predominantly of civil profile arising out of commercial, financial, mercantile and civil or matrimonial nature. In a way dispute may involve wrong which is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have redressed the same by entering into compromise.

In Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another, (2012) 9 JT 457 : (2012) 9 JT 426 : (2012) 9 SCALE 257 : (2012) 10 SCC 303 , the Hon''ble Supreme Court considered necessary imports of all previous precedents and observed in the following manner:-

"57. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R. may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim''s family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."

The Hon''ble Supreme Court further endorsed the view of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another, (2012) 9 JT 457 : (2012) 9 JT 426 : (2012) 9 SCALE 257 : (2012) 10 SCC 303 , in Dimpey Gujral and Others Vs. Union Territory Through Administrator, U.T. Chandigarh and Others, AIR 2013 SC 518 : (2013) CriLJ 520 : (2012) 6 CTC 829 : (2012) 12 JT 80 : (2013) 1 RCR(Criminal) 745 : (2012) 11 SCALE 589 in a case arising out of offence under Section 307 IPC. The Hon''ble Apex Court while relying upon Gian Singh''s case (supra) held that the parties can be allowed to compound the offences even though the offences are of non-compoundable nature and are not heinous offences as continuation of such criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law. The criteria as highlighted by the Hon''ble Apex Court is that offences of personal nature which are not serious in nature could be compounded even though the offence is non-compoundable in nature in the light of observations made in Gian Singh''s case (supra). The Hon''ble Apex Court proceeded to quash the criminal proceedings on the ground that the continuation thereof would tantamount to abuse of process of law as the offences were not heinous in nature showing any extreme depravity nor against the society. The offence being personal in nature was allowed to be compounded in order to bring peace, amity and harmony between the parties. In the circumstances of the case, the offence under Section 307 IPC was allowed to be compounded and the FIR along with other consequential proceedings were quashed.

The quashing of criminal proceedings in an offence under Section 307 IPC came up for detailed discussion before the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Narinder Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Another, (2014) AIRSCW 2065 : (2014) CriLJ 2436 : (2014) 4 JT 573 : (2014) 4 SCALE 195 : (2014) 6 SCC 466 . After due consideration the Hon''ble Apex Court formalized the issue of compounding of offences under Section 307 IPC to say that it is an offence against society and is non-compoundable, but in certain cases the High Court would be guided to give adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Following principles were laid down in para 31 of the judgment:-

"31. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings:

(I) Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution.

(II) When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:

(i) ends of justice, or

(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.

(III) Such a power is not be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, for offences alleged to have been committed under special statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by Public Servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender.

(IV) On the other, 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.

(V) While exercising its powers, the High 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.

(VI) Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore is to be generally treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to proving the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc. Medical report in respect of injuries suffered by the victim can generally be the guiding factor. On the basis of this prima facie analysis, the High Court can examine as to whether there is a strong possibility of conviction or the chances of conviction are remote and bleak. In the former case it can refuse to accept the settlement and quash the criminal proceedings whereas in the later case it would be permissible for the High Court to accept the plea compounding the offence based on complete settlement between the parties. At this stage, the Court can also be swayed by the fact that the settlement between the parties is going to result in harmony between them which may improve their future relationship.

(VII) While deciding whether to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code or not, timings of settlement play a crucial role. Those cases where the settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged commission of offence and the matter is still under investigation, the High Court may be liberal in accepting the settlement to quash the criminal proceedings/investigation. It is because of the reason that at this stage the investigation is still on and even the charge sheet has not been filed. Likewise, those cases where the charge is framed but the evidence is yet to start or the evidence is still at infancy stage, the High Court can show benevolence in exercising its powers favorably, but after prima facie assessment of the circumstances/material mentioned above. On the other hand, where the prosecution evidence is almost complete or after the conclusion of the evidence the matter is at the stage of argument, normally the High Court should refrain from exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code, as in such cases the trial court would be in a position to decide the case finally on merits and to come a conclusion as to whether the offence under Section 307 IPC is committed or not. Similarly, in those cases where the conviction is already recorded by the trial court and the matter is at the appellate stage before the High Court, mere compromise between the parties would not be a ground to accept the same resulting in acquittal of the offender who has already been convicted by the trial court. Here charge is proved under Section 307 IPC and conviction is already recorded of a heinous crime and, therefore, there is no question of sparing a convict found guilty of such a crime."

In State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Deepak and others, 2014 (4) RCR (Crl.) 202, the Hon''ble Apex Court has again reiterated the offence under Section 307 IPC being an offence against society and cannot be treated to be private dispute between the parties, however guidelines laid down in Narinder Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Another, (2014) AIRSCW 2065 : (2014) CriLJ 2436 : (2014) 4 JT 573 : (2014) 4 SCALE 195 : (2014) 6 SCC 466 were reiterated after referring to Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another, (2012) 9 JT 457 : (2012) 9 JT 426 : (2012) 9 SCALE 257 : (2012) 10 SCC 303 and other precedents on the point. In pith and substance the view expressed in Narinder Singh and others'' case (supra) has to be followed, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of each case.

In nutshell each case has to be considered on its own merits. While exercising inherent powers, High Court has to examine whether possibility of conviction is bleak and continuation of proceedings would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and would result in futility. Offence under Section 307 IPC falls under the category of heinous offence and generally it is to be treated offence against the State/society and not an individual offence. At the same time High Court would not base its decision merely because offence under Section 307 IPC is mentioned in the FIR or in the charge. It is still open before the Court as to whether insertion of offence under Section 307 IPC is based on evidence or it is just for the sake of incorporation in the FIR.

In a way, Court is empowered to look into the nature of injury sustained by the victim, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital parts of the body, the nature of weapon used in the crime, medical evidence brought on record in respect of injuries sustained by the victim, place of occurrence and stage of the case are the relevant factors on which this Court can examine as to whether there is strong possibility of conviction or the chances of conviction are bleak and remote. In case of quashing of criminal prosecution arising out of offence under Section 307 IPC, following facts are necessary to be considered for arriving at the conclusion i.e.:-

(i) Whether offence would remain an offence against State/society or it can be diluted, if weapon used is not deadly weapon,

(ii) Place where occurrence took place is not publicly exposed so as to exhibit action in open before the society.

(iii) Medical opinion is such that it aggravated with the passage of time and ultimately brought the offence within the fold of 307 IPC, and

(iv) the offence is the outcome of any matrimonial discord between the parties.

Consideration of principles highlighted and guidelines framed reveal that the Court has to weigh the culpability on the aforesaid criterion and if the alleged act can be segregated to mean that it was not in public view nor it was exhibited in public view with deadly weapon and if the medical evidence is also based on opinion evidence highlighting happening or non-happening of particular event then the offence under Section 307 IPC can be considered for compounding on the basis of compromise.

The FIR came to be registered on 13.10.2011 under Section 307 IPC in respect of occurrence which took place on 15.07.2011. It is a case of no MLR, no ruqa, even no injury is shown on the person of complainant. The alleged strangulation was claimed that too about three months back from the registration of the FIR.

Since the parties have amicably settled their grievances, chances of conviction of the petitioners are very bleak. In considered opinion of this Court inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., can be exercised in view of guidelines framed in Narinder Singh and others''s case (supra) in order to allow both the parties to live in peace.

Consequently this petition is allowed. Resultantly, FIR No. 181 dated 13.10.2011, under Sections 498-A, 406, 506, 504, 307, 323, 34 IPC, P.S. Sadar Sirsa, along with entire subsequent proceedings are quashed.