Himachal Pradesh High Court
Sachin Kumar vs State Of H.P. & Another on 12 June, 2019
Author: Vivek Singh Thakur
Bench: Vivek Singh Thakur
.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Cr.MMO No. 13 of 2019
Date of Decision 12th June, 2019
_________________________________________________________________
Sachin Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. & another
Coram
r to .... Respondents
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, J.
Whether approved for reporting?
______________________________________________________________
For the Petitioner: Mr.Mahesh Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. S.C. Sharma, Additional
Advocate General with Mr.R.R.Rahi
Deputy Advocate General and
Mr.Ram Lal Thakur, Assistant
Advocate General for respondent
No.1. and Mr.Shyam Singh Chauhan
Advocate, for respondent No.2
__________________________________________________________________
Vivek Singh Thakur, J.(Oral)
Present petition has been filed for quashing of FIR No. 57 of 2018 dated 26.3.2018 qua the petitioner, registered at P.S. Dhalli under Sections 379, 411, 120B read ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2019 23:25:18 :::HCHP 2 with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and 181 of Motor Vehicles Act.
.
2 The quashing has been sought on the basis of compromise entered between the complainant and petitioner, copy whereof has been placed on record as Annexure A-4, wherein it is stated that petitioner and complainant/respondent No.2 have entered into the compromise and as per that compromise, Rs.10 lacs have been paid by the petitioner to the complainant/respondent No.2 and respondent No. 2 has consented for quashing of FIR against the petitioner. Compromise has been duly signed by both the parties.
3 No reply has been preferred on behalf of respondent No.2/complainant, rather no objection has been communicated for quashing of FIR qua the petitioner on behalf of respondent No.2 through his counsel.
4 Respondent No.1/State has filed the replywherein it is stated that challan against the petitioner has been presented under Sections 411, 120-B read with ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2019 23:25:18 :::HCHP 3 Section 201 IPC. Further that quashing of FIR qua the petitioner is not permissible as other accused have not been .
made party and it may have adverse impact on the case of prosecution with respect to other accused.
5 Offence under Section 411 IPC is compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C. by the owner of property stolen.
On conviction under Section 411 IPC, the accused may be sentenced upto three years. However, Sections 120B and 201 IPC are not compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C.
6. Three Judges Bench of the Apex Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Ors. reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, explaining that High Court has inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with no statutory limitation including Section 320 Cr.PC, has held that these powers are to be exercised to secure the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process of any Court and these powers can be exercised to quash criminal proceedings or complaint or FIR in appropriate cases where offender and victim have settled their dispute and for that ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2019 23:25:18 :::HCHP 4 purpose no definite category of offence can be prescribed.
However, it is also observed that Courts must have due .
regard to nature and gravity of the crime and criminal proceedings in heinous and serious offences or offence like murder, rape and dacoity etc. should not be quashed despite victim or victim family have settled the dispute with offender. Jurisdiction vested in High Court under Section 482 Cr.PC is held to be exercisable for quashing criminal proceedings in cases having overwhelming and predominatingly civil flavour particularly offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil partnership, or such like transactions, or even offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry etc., family disputes or other such disputes where wrong is basically private or personal nature where parties mutually resolve their dispute amicably. It was also held that no category or cases for this purpose could be prescribed and each case has to be dealt with on its own merit but it is also clarified that this power does not extend to crimes against society.
::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2019 23:25:18 :::HCHP 57. The Apex Court, in case Narinder Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab and Ors. (2014) 6 SCC 466, .
has sum up and laid down principles, by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercise 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 criminal proceedings.
8. No doubt Section 120-B and 201 of IPC is not compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C. However, as explained by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh's and Narinder Singh's cases supra, power of High Court under Section 482 CrPC is not inhibited by the provisions of Section 320 CrPC and FIR as well as criminal proceedings can be quashed by exercising inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC, if warranted in given facts and circumstances of the case for ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court, even in those cases ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2019 23:25:18 :::HCHP 6 which are not compoundable where parties have settled the matter between themselves.
.
9 In the present case, prayer for quashing of FIR qua the petitioner has been made, whereas there are other accused who are facing the trial. As per pronouncements of the Apex Court in cases Lovely Salhotra and another vs. State NCT of Delhi and another in Criminal Appeal No. 670 of 2017 and Nikhil Merchant vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another reported in (2008)9 SCC 677 the FIR can be quashed in part against one or some of the accused.
10 The petitioner is businessman who is running a proprietorship concern in the name and style of Balaji Steel Industries at Gobindgarh Mandi, District Fatehgarh Sahib, Punjab and he is dealing in steel and scrap material.
According to him, he has admitted the purchase of stolen material from Jyoti Enterprises against the proper bill Annexure A-1 issued by Jyoti Enterprises, whose owner is also an accused in the present case. It is the case of ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2019 23:25:18 :::HCHP 7 petitioner that during the investigation of case, the police had visited the premises of his proprietorship concern at .
Mandi Gobindgarh and had inquired from the employees regarding the purchase of iron poles. By that time, those iron poles had already been sold further to the customers and therefore, said articles were not available with the petitioner. However, immediately after having the knowledge that the poles purchased by the petitioner from Jyoti Enterprises were stolen articles, the petitioner had inquired the matter and found that case FIR No. 57 of 2018 has been registered in P.S. Dhalli, Shimla on 26 th March, 2018 and thereafter, the petitioner somehow managed the contact of respondent No.2 Manish Sharma, complainant as well as owner of property and expressed his inability to produce the articles being sold further and had admitted that he had bonafidely purchased the said articles and had expressed his desire and willingness to compensate the cost of goods, whereupon respondent No. 2 had agreed to the compromise and accordingly, compromise has been entered ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2019 23:25:18 :::HCHP 8 between the petitioner and respondent No.2 and the petitioner had already made the payment of Rs.10 lacs to .
respondent No.2 according to the loss calculated by the owner of goods (respondent No.2).
11 As the petitioner has been intending to save the name and reputation of business and family and according to the petitioner, respondent No. 2 has agreed to withdraw the FIR as he did not do so, therefore, he has filed the present petition as agreed in the compromise.
12. The aforesaid facts have not been disputed, rather admitted by learned counsel for respondent No.2.
Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has also communicated/expressed the consent on behalf of respondent No.2 for quashing of FIR against the petitioner on the basis of compromise.
13. Offence in question does not fall in the category of offences prohibited for compounding in terms of the pronouncements of the Apex Court by exercising power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2019 23:25:18 :::HCHP 914. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I find that it is a fit case to exercise the inherent power of the .
Court to quash the FIR qua the petitioner only and accordingly, FIR No. 57 of 2018 registered under Sections 411, 120B and 201 IPC qua the petitioner is quashed and resultantly, consequential proceedings pending before the trial Court against the petitioner are also quashed. Needless to say that quashing of FIR as well as criminal proceedings qua the petitioner shall not have any impact on the merits of prosecution case in the trial pending against other accused before the trial Court as the petitioner has not disputed the veracity of prosecution case, but has prayed for quashing of FIR on the basis of compromise arrived at between him and the owner of goods stolen. Petition stands disposed of including all pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.
June 12, 2019 (Vivek Singh Thakur)
(ms) Judge
::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2019 23:25:18 :::HCHP