Himachal Pradesh High Court
Date Of Decision: 23.08.2024 vs State Of H.P. & Ors on 23 August, 2024
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
2024:HHC:7292 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No.753 of 2024 Date of Decision: 23.08.2024 .
_______________________________________________________ Manish Thakur & Ors.
.......Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Ors.
.....Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Aishwarya Chauhan, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No.1-State.
Mr. Kunal Thakur, Advocate, for respondents No. 2 & 3.
HC Kush Sharma No. 116, PS Sangrah, District Sirmaur, H.P. present in person. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral):
By way of instant petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for quashing of FIR No.22 of 2018, dated 09.03.2018, under Sections 341, 143 and 336 of Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Sangrah, District Sirmaur, H.P., as well as consequent proceedings, if any, pending adjudication in the competent court of 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2024 20:30:16 :::CIS 2
2024:HHC:7292 law, on the basis of the compromise arrived inter se parties, whereby they have resolved to settle the dispute amicably inter se them.
.
2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record, are that FIR, sought to be quashed, in the instant proceedings came to be lodged at the behest of respondents No. 2 & 3 namely Mr. Rakesh Pundeer & Vijender Sharma (hereinafter to be referred to as 'complainants'), who alleged that on 07.03.2018, while few workers of Himachal Pradesh Youth Congress had organized rally in Nohradhar to oppose the policies of Central Government, they indulged in illegal activities of burning the effigy of Hon'ble Prime Minister of the country.
In the aforesaid background, FIR, as detailed herein above, came to be lodged against the petitioners-accused under relevant provision of Indian Penal Code.
3. Though, after completion of investigation, Police has already presented challan in the competent court of law against the petitioners-accused, but before same could be taken to its logical end, parties have entered into compromise, whereby they have resolved to settle the dispute amicably inter se them and as such, petitioners-
accused have approached this Court in the instant proceedings, for quashing of FIR as well as consequent proceedings, if any, pending adjudication in the competent court of law.
::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2024 20:30:16 :::CIS 32024:HHC:7292
4. Pursuant to order dated 07.08.2024, respondent-State has filed status report under the signatures of SHO, PS Sangrah, .
District Sirmaur, H.P. and HC Kush Sharma has come present with record. In the aforesaid status report, not only factum of compromise has been duly acknowledged, rather statements given by the complainants, named hereinabove, have also been enclosed, wherein they have categorically admitted factum of their having entered into compromise with the petitioners-accused and they have no objection in case, FIR, sought to be quashed, is quashed and petitioners-
accused are acquitted of charges framed against them.
5. Besides above, complainants have come present and are being represented by Mr. Kunal Thakur, Advocate. They state on oath that they of their own volition and without any external pressure have entered into compromise with the petitioners-accused, whereby both the parties have resolved to settle the dispute amicably inter se them.
They state that FIR sought to be quashed is a result of misunderstanding, coupled with the fact that petitioners-accused have already apologized for their mistake and they have undertaken not to repeat such in act in future and as such, they shall have no objection in case, prayer made for quashing of FIR through instant petition is accepted and petitioners-accused are acquitted of charges framed against them. While admitting contents of compromise placed on ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2024 20:30:16 :::CIS 4 2024:HHC:7292 record to be correct, they also admit their signatures thereupon. Their statements are taken on record.
.
6. After having heard aforesaid statements made on oath by the complainants, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, fairly states that no fruitful purpose would be served in case, FIR as well as consequent proceedings pending adjudication in the competent court of law are allowed to sustain. He further states that otherwise also chances of conviction of the petitioner-accused are very remote and bleak on account of statements made by the complainants on oath and as such, this court may proceed to pass appropriate orders.
7. The question, which now needs consideration is whether FIR in question can be ordered to be quashed when Hon'ble Apex Court in Narinder Singh and others versus State of Punjab and another (2014) 6 SCC 466 has specifically held that power under Section 482 Cr.P.C (hereinafter to be referred to as the "Code") is not to be exercised in the cases which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., as such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society?
8. At this stage, it would be relevant to take note of the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Narinder Singh (supra), ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2024 20:30:16 :::CIS 5 2024:HHC:7292 whereby the Hon'ble Apex Court has formulated guidelines for accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to .
accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings. Perusal of judgment, referred above, clearly depicts that in para 29.1, Hon'ble Apex Court has returned the findings that power conferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 Cr.P.C. No doubt, under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the High Court has inherent power to quash criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable and where the parties have settled the matter between themselves, however, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with great caution. In para Nos. 29 to 29.7 of the judgment Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down certain parameters to be followed, while compounding offences.
9. Careful perusal of para 29.3 of the judgment suggests that such a power is not to be exercised in the cases 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. Apart from this, offences 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 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2024 20:30:16 :::CIS 6 2024:HHC:7292 the victim and the offender. On the other hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly .
arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes may be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves. Aforesaid view taken by Hon'ble Apex Court has been further reiterated in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and anr. (2012) 10 SCC 303.
10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case Gian Singh supra has held that power of the High Court in quashing of the criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent power is distinct and different from the power of a Criminal Court to compound the offences under Section 320 Cr.P.C. Even in the judgment passed in Narinder Singh's case, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that while exercising inherent power of quashment under Section 482 Cr.P.C the Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime and its social impact and it cautioned the Courts not to exercise the power for quashing proceedings in heinous and serious offences of mental depravity, murder, rape, dacoity etc. However subsequently, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Dimpey Gujral and Ors. vs. Union Territory through Administrator, UT, Chandigarh and Ors. (2013) 11 SCC 497 has further reiterated that continuation of criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law because ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2024 20:30:16 :::CIS 7 2024:HHC:7292 the alleged offences are not heinous offences showing extreme depravity nor are they against the society. Hon'ble Apex Court further .
observed that when offences are of a personal nature, burying them would bring about peace and amity between the two sides.
11. Hon'ble Apex Court in its judgment dated 4th October, 2017, titled as Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others versus State of Gujarat and Another, passed in Criminal Appeal No.1723 of 2017 arising out of SLP(Crl) No.9549 of 2016, reiterated the principles/ parameters laid down in Narinder Singh's case supra for accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings.
12. In the case at hand also, offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioners-accused do not involve offences of moral turpitude or any grave/heinous crime, rather same are petty offences, and as such, this Court deems it appropriate to quash the FIR as well as consequential proceedings thereto, especially keeping in view the fact that the petitioners-accused and complainants have compromised the matter inter se them, in which case, possibility of conviction is remote and no fruitful purpose would be served in continuing with the criminal proceedings.
13. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court (supra), FIR No.22 of ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2024 20:30:16 :::CIS 8 2024:HHC:7292 2018, dated 09.03.2018, under Sections 341, 143 and 336 of Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Sangrah, District Sirmaur, .
H.P., as well as consequent proceedings, if any, pending adjudication in the competent court of law are quashed and set aside. Accused is acquitted of the charges framed against him.
14. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms, alongwith all pending applications.
August 23, 2024
(sunil)
r to (Sandeep Sharma),
Judge
::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2024 20:30:16 :::CIS