Emphasizing that the continuation of criminal proceedings may not always serve the ends of justice when a lawful resolution ensures family welfare, the Supreme Court has quashed a criminal case involving charges of attempt to murder against a husband. The Court exercised its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, prioritizing the stability of the family after the husband submitted a written undertaking to look after his wife and child.
The Supreme Court was hearing an appeal against a Himachal Pradesh High Court order that had refused to quash an FIR registered under Sections 307 (attempt to murder), 323, 324, 452, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma set aside the High Court’s judgment and quashed the proceedings, observing that closing the case would serve both individual and societal interests by encouraging responsibility.
Background of the Case
The appellant, Bharat Pathania, approached the Supreme Court challenging the judgment dated July 23, 2025, passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla. The High Court had declined to quash the proceedings arising out of FIR No. 93/2024, registered at Police Station Dharampur, District Mandi. The FIR included serious allegations under Section 307 (attempt to murder) along with other offences relating to causing hurt, house-trespass, and criminal intimidation.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
While acknowledging the seriousness of the offences, the Supreme Court balanced the need for deterrence with the specific circumstances of the matrimonial dispute.
The Bench observed:
“We are mindful that the commission of an offence inevitably implicate broader societal ramifications and invite a response grounded in deterrence. However, the exercise of judicial discretion must be guided by the circumstances of the case.”
The Court further noted that where a resolution ensures the well-being of the family, legal rigidity should give way to justice:
“Where a lawful resolution ensures the welfare of the wife and the child, the continuation of criminal proceedings may not always advance the ends of justice. In such cases, bringing the proceedings to a close may serve both individual and societal interests by encouraging responsibility and stability.”
The Decision
The appellant appeared in Court along with his wife and submitted a written undertaking, marked as Exhibit ‘X’. In this undertaking, he assured the Court that he would look after his wife and child “nicely” and “not harm them in any manner whatsoever”.
Taking this assurance on record, the Bench interacted with the appellant to explain the consequences of breaching the undertaking. The Court warned:
“We clarify that if, in future, there be any remissness/default/breach on the appellant’s part to honour the undertaking and the same is brought to the notice of this Court by his wife or their child or any relative of the wife, the consequences may not be too palatable for the appellant.”
Invoking its plenary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to do complete justice, the Supreme Court quashed the criminal proceedings. However, the Court explicitly clarified that “this order shall not be cited as a precedent in future cases.”
Case Details
- Case Title: Bharat Pathania v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.
- Case No.: Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 12798/2025
- Coram: Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
- Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Sukumar Patjoshi (Sr. Adv), Mr. Mohan Lal Sharma (AOR), Mr. Jeevan Lal Sharma, Ms. Shikha Sharma, Ms. Raina Anand
- Counsel for Respondent: Mr. Satyajit Sarna, Ms. Anindita Mitra (AOR), Mr. Rakshit Rathi, Dr. Mrs. Vipin Gupta (AOR), Mr. Krishna Kumar, Ms. Nandani Gupta
