Himachal Pradesh High Court
Pyar Chand @ Bittu Son Of vs State Of Punjab And Ors. Reported In ... on 18 August, 2022
Author: Vivek Singh Thakur
Bench: Vivek Singh Thakur
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
ON THE 18th DAY OF AUGUST, 2022
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIVEK SINGH THAKUR
.
CRIMINAL MISC.PETITION (MAIN) U/S 482 CRPC NO. 317 OF
2022
Between:-
1. PYAR CHAND @ BITTU SON OF
SHRI SHIV RAM RESIDENT OF
VILLAGE SOHAR, PO BAROTI,
TEHSIL SUNDER NAGAR,
DISTRICT MANDI HP
2. RAKESH KUMAR SON OF SHRI
SHIV RAM,
RESIDENT OF
VILLAGE SOHAR, PO BAROTI,
TEHSIL SUNDER NAGAR,
DISTRICT MANDI HP
3. SMT. SAROJANI WIFE OF SHRI
SHIV RAM RESIDENT OF VILLAGE
SOHAR, PO BAROTI, TEHSIL
SUNDER NAGAR, DISTRICT
MANDI HP
....PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI PRAVEEN KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,
2. JAGAN NATH SON OF LATE SHRI
GOPALA RAM, RESIDENT OF MANU
NIWAS, BYE PASS ROAD NEAR TUNNEL,
DHALLI, SHIMLA
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI RAJU RAM RAHI, DEPUTY ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR R-
1)
::: Downloaded on - 20/08/2022 20:01:31 :::CIS
2
(RESPONDENT NO.2 IS PRESENT IN PERSON)
Whether approved for reporting?
This petition coming on for presence of parties this day, the Court passed the
.
following:
ORDER
This petition has been preferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 30 of 2013 dated 12.2.2013 registered under Sections 382, 341, 323, 506, 201 and 34 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter in short 'IPC') at Police Station Sunder Nagar, District Mandi HP and for quashing of proceedings initiated in pursuant thereto pending in the concerned Court.
2 Complainant/respondent No.2 has appeared in personal capacity and the accused/petitioners, who are present in Court, were duly identified by their counsel. Statement of complainant/respondent No.2 was recorded on oath and separate joint statement of accused/petitioners has also been recorded, which have been placed on record.
3 Complainant/respondent No.2 Jagan Nath has stated that all of them, i.e. he as well as petitioners, belong to same clan and resident of one and same village and that with intervention of relatives and elders, matter has been compromised between them. He has further stated that as per compromise, he does not intend to continue the criminal proceedings against the petitioners and therefore, he has prayed for permission to withdraw the complaint ::: Downloaded on - 20/08/2022 20:01:31 :::CIS 3 for quashing the FIR. He has identified his signatures on compromise deed, placed on record.
4. Petitioners namely Pyar Chand, Rakesh Kumar and .
Ms.Sarojani, endorsing the statement made by complainant as true and correct, have undertaken not to repeat such incident in future. 6 Respondent No.2 as well as petitioners, in their respective statements, have stated that they have compromised the matter and deposed in the Court out of their free will, consent and also without any kind of threat, coercion or pressure etc.
7. Quashing of FIR in present petition has been prayed on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties, which has been placed on record, which is duly signed by petitioners and respondent No.2. Both the petitioners and signed the compromise deed and the complainant have endorsed the compromise. 8 Though no separate reply has been filed on behalf of respondent No.1/State, but quashing of FIR has been opposed on the ground that petitioners have been charge sheeted for commission of offence under Sections 382, 341, 323, 506, 201 and 34 IPC and after completion of investigation, which has been carried out as per law without any bias or malice, chargesheet has been filed in the Court for judicial verdict and if present petition is allowed the whole exercise and investigation conducted by police will become futile and it will be the sheer abuse of the process of law. ::: Downloaded on - 20/08/2022 20:01:31 :::CIS 4 9 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 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 ::: Downloaded on - 20/08/2022 20:01:31 :::CIS 5 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. 10 The Apex Court in Parbatbhai Aahir alias .
Parbathbhai Bhimsinghbhai Karmur and others vs. State of Gujarat and another, (2017)9 SCC 641 summarizing the broad principles regarding inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has recognized that these powers are not inhibited by provisions of Section 320 Cr.P.C.
11 The Apex Court in case Narinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and others reported in (2014)6 SCC 466 and also in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan and others (2019)5 SCC 688 has summed 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. 12 As explained by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh's, Narinder Singh's Parbatbhai Aahir's and Laxmi Narayan's cases supra, power of High Court under Section 482 Cr.PC 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 ::: Downloaded on - 20/08/2022 20:01:31 :::CIS 6 abuse of the process of any Court, even in those cases which are not compoundable where parties have settled the matter between themselves.
.
13. In Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab, (2008)4 SCC 582 the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasized and advised that in the matter of compromise in criminal proceedings, keeping in view of nature of this case, to save the time of the Court for utilizing to decide more effective and meaningful litigation, a commonsense approach, based on ground realities and bereft of the technicalities of law, should be applied.
14. Keeping in view the statements of the complainant as well as petitioners, who have appeared in person and endorsed the compromise arrived at with petitioners/accused, I find that it is a fit case to exercise power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and further even otherwise, in view of statements of the complainant and petitioners, if criminal proceedings are allowed to continue, no fruitful purpose is going to be served.
15. Further, offences in question do 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 Cr.P.C.
16 Considering facts and circumstances of the case in entirety, I am of the opinion that present petition deserves to be allowed for ends of justice and the same is allowed accordingly and ::: Downloaded on - 20/08/2022 20:01:31 :::CIS 7 FIR No. 30 of 2013, dated 12.2.2013, registered against the petitioners/accused at P.S. Sunder Nagar, District Mandi H.P. is quashed. Consequent to quashing of said FIR, criminal proceedings .
pending in the concerned Court are also quashed.
Petition stands disposed of in above terms, so also pending application, if any.
The parties are permitted to produce copy of order downloaded from the High Court website and the concerned authority shall not insist for certified copy of the order, however, they may verify the order from the High Court website or otherwise .
August 18, 2022 (Vivek Singh Thakur)
(ms) Judge
::: Downloaded on - 20/08/2022 20:01:31 :::CIS