IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No.8855 of 2011 Judgment Reserved on: 31.10.2011 Date of decision: 14.11.2011 Smt.Shivani Gupta … …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Another … …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, J. The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dev Darshan Sud,J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No. For the Petitioner: M/s.N.K. Thakur and B.R. Verma, Advocates. For Respondent No.1: Mr.Rajinder Dogra, Additional Advocate General. For Respondent No.2: Mr.Bhupender Gupta, Senior Advocate, with Mr.Janesh Gupta, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud,J. This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner herein who is one of the accused in FIR No.42 of 2010, dated 14.2.2010, registered with Police Station Boileauganj, Shimla, praying that FIR No.42/2010 be quashed. 2. The petitioner avers that she is the wife of son of respondent No.2 who had lodged the First Information Report with the Police Station, Boileauganj and a case was registered under Sections 457, 380, 436 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? Yes. 2 and 120-B of the IPC against her and two other accused namely, Anita alias Kesar wife of Shri Sanju and Smt.Suman Devi wife of Shri Surat Ram. 3. The litigation between the petitioner, respondent No.2 and his son Shri Deepak Gupta has a long drawn history, both in Civil and Criminal cases. However, in order to cut short the controversy one of the grounds urged before this Court is that the petitioner herein, respondent No.2, Shri Gian Chand Gupta, who is practicing as a Senior Advocate in this Court and his son Shri Deepak Gupta, who is also an advocate, have settled the disputes interse between themselves and there are no dispute(s) between the parties as of now. Continuation of the case between the parties, more so, considering the sensitive nature of the relationship, namely, that the petitioner herein was the daughter-in-law of respondent No.2, a Civil Suit was filed by respondent No.2 Shri Gian Chand Gupta against the petitioner praying for a decree of injunction, she has also instituted proceedings against respondent No.2 and his son under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act; a Habeas Corpus petition, praying for the custody of her child instituted by her, was also pending in this Court; divorce proceedings between her and her husband Shri Deepak Gupta were also pending in the trial Court. In some of these cases, the parties had also instituted petition(s) under Article 227 of the Constitution of 3 India and under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the continuation of the proceedings on a number of grounds. 4. We had gone through the entire record of this case as also the other connected petitions being CMPMO No.257 of 2011, Cr.W.P. No.20 of 2011, Cr.M.M.O. No.179 of 2010, including the record of the trial Court. Parties have now worked out an amicable settlement interse between themselves where all disputes pending between them have been resolved amicably in terms of the compromise filed by the parties in CMPMO No.257 of 2011. The parties agree and undertake to abide by this compromise and also state that there are no other or further disputes pending between them arising out of these proceedings and each one of them wants to lead his/her life peacefully. 5. The parameters of the powers of this Court in quashing First Information Report have been laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana and Others vs. Bhajan Lal and Others, 1992 Suplement (1) SCC 335. The decision has been subsequently followed in a number of cases. 6. In Som Mittal vs. Government of Karnataka, (2008)3 SCC 574 the Supreme Court was considering the ambit of the powers of the Court to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and held that the term of rarest and rare cases as also sparingly and circumspection used to define jurisdiction under 4 Section 482 Cr.P.C. means that the power should not be used mechanically or routinely, but with care and caution, only when a clear case of quashing is made out and failure to interfere would lead to miscarriage of justice. 7. In Pepsi Foods Ltd. vs. Special Judicial Magistrate, (1998)5 SCC 749, the Supreme Court was considering the powers of the Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing criminal proceedings. The Court held: “22. It is settled that High Court can exercise its power of judicial review in criminal matters. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, this Court examined the extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution and also the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which it said could be exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. While laying down certain guidelines where the Court will exercise jurisdiction under these provisions, it was also stated that these guidelines could not be inflexible or laying rigid formulae to be followed by the Courts. Exercise of such power would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case but with the sole purpose to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. One of such guidelines is where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and 5 accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. Under Article 227 the power of superintendence by the High Court is not only of administrative nature but is also of judicial nature. This Article confers vast powers on the High Court to prevent the abuse of the process of law by the inferior Courts and to see that the stream of administration of justice remains clean and pure. The power conferred on the High Court under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution and under Section 482 of the Code have no limits but more the power more due care and caution is to be exercised while invoking these powers. When the exercise of powers could be under Article 227 or S. 482 of the Code it may not always be necessary to invoke the provisions of Article 226. Some of the decisions of this Court laying down principles for the exercise of powers by the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 may be referred to. 26. Nomenclature under which petition is filed is not quite relevant and that does not debar the Court from exercising its jurisdiction which otherwise it possesses unless there is special procedure prescribed which procedure is mandatory. If in a case like the present one the Court finds that the appellants could not invoke its jurisdiction under Article 226, the Court can certainly treat the petition one under Article 227 or Section 482 of the Code. It may not, however, be lost sight of that provisions exist in the Code of revision and appeal but sometime for immediate relief Section 482 of the Code 6 or Article 227 may have to be resorted to for correcting some grave errors that might be committed by the subordinate Courts. The present petition though filed in the High Court as one under Articles 226 and 227 could well be treated under Article 227 of the Constitution. 29. No doubt the Magistrate can discharge the accused at any stage of the trial if he considers the charge to be groundless, but that does not mean that the accused cannot approach the High Court under Section 482 of the Code or Article 227 of the Constitution to have the proceeding quashed against him when the complaint does not make out any case against him and still he must undergo the agony of a criminal trial. … … … …” (pp.758-760) 8. We have noted the contention of the State that quashing of criminal proceedings is a serious matter and the Criminal Justice System cannot be made subject matter of the desire of a particular individual. But the distinguishing factor which we notice in this case is that the parties have settled all the disputes interse between themselves amicably, the relationship of the parties and the present case relates to the allegations made against the petitioner herein that she was responsible for setting fire and causing damages to the property of the second respondent. In that incident, two other accused Anita alias Kesar and Smt.Suman Devi had also sustained 7 injuries. We have recorded their statements separately and they have stated in no uncertain terms that they have no objection to the First Information Report being quashed. The statement was not necessary for the reasons which we are giving henceforth for quashing the proceedings but only to ensure that no civil action is brought against the second respondent, his family members or any of the witnesses cited. 9. The basic reason which has prompted us to exercise the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to put an end to the disputes and to restore the social/family harmony between the parties. It is not a case where public property has been damaged or where the interests of the State are otherwise adversely affected or the rights of the State are being compromised, though the case is being prosecuted by the police. We find this to be a fit case where all proceedings pending with respect to criminal case No.33-2 of 2010 in FIR No.42/2010, registered with Police Station Boileauganj are quashed and set aside. We make it clear that none of the parties to that case either the complainant or the accused will be entitled to claim damages as the direct consequence of our order which we have passed. Petition is disposed of. (R.B. Misra) Judge November 14, 2011 (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge.