Himachal Pradesh High Court
Gurmail Singh vs State Of H.P. And Others on 22 September, 2015
Author: Sureshwar Thakur
Bench: Sureshwar Thakur
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr.MMO No. 246 of 2015.
Date of Decision : 22nd September, 2015.
.
Gurmail Singh .....Petitioner.
Versus
State of H.P. and others .....Respondents.
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sureshwar Thakur, Judge.
of
Whether approved for reporting? .
For the Petitioners: Mr. Dheeraj K. Vashisht, Advocate.
For respondent No.1: Mr. Vivek Singh Attri, Dy. A.G.
rt
Respondent No.2 in person.
For Respondent No.3: Mr. Ashok K.Tyagi, Advocate.
______________________________________________
Sureshwar Thakur, Judge (Oral)
This petition has been filed at the instance of the petitioner-accused under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., for the quashing of FIR No.39 of 2015 of 06.03.2015 registered at Police Station, Amb, District Una, Himachal Pradesh wherein the petitioner herein is alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code. Besides a prayer has been made therein that consequential criminal proceedings launched against the petitioner/accused and pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No.I, Amb be also quashed and set aside.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:59:51 :::HCHP 22. During the pendency of the petition before this Court, the respondent No.2 has in his statement recorded on oath, before this Court duly reduced into writing and .
signatured by him, disclosed therein in tandem with the compromise entered inter se him and the accused/petitioner, that he has amicably settled the dispute with the petitioner herein. He has proceeded to record in of his statement on oath, duly reduced into writing and signatured by him that he has no objection in case the rt instant petition preferred by the petitioner before this Court for quashing of FIR No. 39 of 2015 of 06.03.2015 registered at police station Amb, District Una, Himachal Pradesh, is accepted. On the other hand, Mr. Ashok K. Tyagi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3 has also stated at the bar that the respondent No.3 has no objection in case the instant petition preferred by the petitioner before this Court for quashing of FIR No. 39 of 2015 of 06.03.2015 registered at police station Amb, District Una, Himachal Pradesh, is accepted. Given the statement of respondent No.2 and the statement made at bar by the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 besides, given the compromise arrived at inter se the petitioner/accused and the respondents No.2 and 3, this ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:59:51 :::HCHP 3 Court accepts the instant petition. Even though some of the offences constituted in the FIR are non-compoundable, however, in the light of the verdict of the Hon'ble Apex .
Court reported in Narinder Singh and others versus State of Punjab and another, (2014)6 SCC 466, the relevant paragraph 11 whereof is extracted hereinafter, permitting this Court to quash an FIR and consequential of proceedings launched thereto even when some of the offences recorded rt therein are non compoundable, especially to prevent abuse of process of Court or to secure the ends of justice, besides when in the face of a settlement arrived at inter se the accused and the respondents No.2 and 3, the chances of the accused suffering conviction are rendered remote as well as bleak. Paragraph No.11 of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:-
"11. As to under what circumstances the criminal proceedings in a non compoundable case be quashed when there is a settlement between the parties, the Court provided the following guidelines: (Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012)10 SCC 303):-
"58. Where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that the dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled although the offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put on an end and peace is resorted; securing the ends of ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:59:51 :::HCHP 4 justice being the ultimate guiding factor. No doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful effect on the public and consist in wrongdoing that seriously endangers and threats the well being of the society and it is not safe to .
leave the crime-doer only because he and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the victim has been paid compensation, yet certain crimes have been made compoundable in law, with or without the permission of the Court. In respect of serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., or other offences of of mental depravity under IPC or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by the public rt servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between the offender and the victim can have no legal sanction at all. However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions of the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc., or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to the victim and the offender and the victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or FIR if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated. The above list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Each case will depend on its own facts and no hard-and-fast category can be prescribed.""::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:59:51 :::HCHP 5
Consequently, with the settlement arrived at inter se the petitioner herein and the respondents No.2 and 3 comprised in Annexure P-3, constrains, it to hence conclude that even .
if some of the offences constituted in the FIR are non compoundable yet to secure the ends of justice besides to preclude the petitioner/accused being subjected to the harassment and humiliation of facing trial even when the of respondents No.2 and 3 have portrayed in the compromise deed, besides in the statement of respndent No.2 on oath, rt duly reduced into writing and signatured by him, to not proceed to prosecute the accused/petitioner herein, the compromise/settlement arrived at inter se the respondents No. 2 and 3 and the petitioner, necessitates reverence by this Court. Moreover, what further prods this Court to rever the settlement arrived at inter se the petitioner and the respondents No.2 and 3 is comprised in the fact that with the respondents No.2 and 3 being uninterested in prosecuting the accused, resultantly then when the chances of the petitioner/accused suffering conviction are rendered bleak/remote, which remoteness and bleakness of the petitioner/accused suffering conviction when has been in the relevant paragraph 11 of the verdict of the Hon'ble Apex Court enunciated to be a relevant and guiding parameter ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:59:51 :::HCHP 6 for accepting the settlement arrived at inter se the petitioner/accused and the respondents No.2 and 3, even when some of the offences are non compoundable, as in .
this case. Resultantly, when the said parameter standing expostulation in relevant paragraph 11 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court which stands extracted hereinabove has come to be for the reasons aforesaid satiated, satiation of thereof prods this Court to accept the settlement arrived at inter se the petitioner and the respondents No.2 and 3.
rt Consequently, the petition is allowed and FIR No.39 of 2015 of 6.3.2015 wherein the petitioner herein is alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station, Amb, District Una, Himachal Pradesh is quashed, in sequel, the consequential criminal proceedings arising therefrom and pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate 1 st Class, Court No.1, Amb, District Una, H.P. are also quashed and set aside. All the pending applications also stand disposed of.
(Sureshwar Thakur)
22nd
September, 2015 Judge.
(jai
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:59:51 :::HCHP