Himachal Pradesh High Court
Sh. Subhash Chand & Ors vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Anr on 12 March, 2018
Author: Dharam Chand Chaudhary
Bench: Dharam Chand Chaudhary
1
HO'BLE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Cr.MMO No68 of 2018
alongwith
Cr.MMO No.69 of 2018
.
Decided on: March 12, 2018
1. Cr.MMO No.68 of 2018:
Sh. Subhash Chand & Ors. ..........Petitioners
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr.
2. Cr.MMO No.69 of 2018:
Sh. Satish Singh & Ors.
r to ........Respondents
..........Petitioners
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. ........Respondents
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J.
Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners : Mr. Anuj Gupta, Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. S.C. Sharma and Mr. Narinder Guleria, Addl.
Advocate Generals, for respondent No.1.
1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2018 23:52:09 :::HCHP 2Mr. Vinay Mehta, Advocate, for respondent No.2.
ASI Chatter Singh, P.S. Indora, Distt. Kangra, H.P. .
Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. (Oral).
This judgment shall dispose of both petitions filed with a prayer to quash the FIRs, Annexure P-1, is thereto. As a matter of fact, it is FIR No.59 of 2016, registered at the instance of complainant-respondent No.2, should have been sought to be quashed in Cr.MMO No.68 of 2018, however, FIR No.60 of 2016, in cross case registered against the complainant-respondent No.2 in this petition and his co-accused, has been annexed thereto as Annexure P-1.
Similarly, in connected petition, i.e. Cr.MMO No.69 of 2018, it is the proceedings in a case registered vide FIR No.60 of 2016, should have been sought to be quashed, however, it is FIR No.59 of 2016, is annexed thereto as Annexure P-1.
2. Learned counsel submits that the copy of FIRs in this manner came to be annexed with these petitions by way of an advertent mistake. On his oral request, he is ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2018 23:52:09 :::HCHP 3 permitted to replace the FIRs, Annexure P-1, from one petition to other, so that the record is straighten.
3. It is seen that the cases by the parties in .
these petitions against each-other, came to be registered vide above mentioned FIRs, on account of they scuffled with each-other on 16.04.2016 in the evening around 07.30 p.m. Learned Additional Advocate General, has placed on record of these petitions the status report which reveals that the investigation is now complete and the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. has been filed in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Indora, District Kangra, H.P. The same presently is at the stage of scrutiny of the documents, annexed thereto, meaning thereby that the proceedings in both cases are at initial stage.
4. The complainants and accused persons in both cases have now compromised all disputes and rightly so as they are neighbours. With the intervention of the elderly placed persons and respectables in the area, they have patched up all differences and decided not to prosecute the ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2018 23:52:09 :::HCHP 4 cases registered against each-other. The compromise-deed is Annexure P-2, which reveals that the parties on both sides, are in favour of living piecefully by having cordial relations .
amongst themselves. The offence under Sections 147, 148, 504 & 323 IPC, allegedly committed by them against each other, is compoundable under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is, however, the offence punishable under Sections 149 and 324 IPC , which is not compoundable and it is for this reason they have approached this Court with a prayer to quash the FIRs, lodged by them against each-
other, in the exercise of inherent power vested in it under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
5. The apex Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and Another, (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 303, has, held that the High Court in exercise of inherent powers vested in it under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, may quash FIR/criminal proceedings in a case where the offence allegedly committed by an accused though is not compoundable, however, in case the victim and ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2018 23:52:09 :::HCHP 5 accused have settled the differences amicably, the inherent powers of the Court can be pressed in service for quashing the proceedings. Such powers, however, can be exercised .
sparingly and only in appropriate cases, having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such other transactions of like nature including matrimonial or the case relating to dowry etc. in which the wrong basically is done to the victim. This judgment further reveals that the compounding of offence in a case of serious nature like rape, dacoity and corruption etc. having serious impact in the society is not permissible.
6. The Punjab and Haryana High Court in Karamvir Singh vs. State of Punjab and Another, Cr.
Misc. No.M-1586 of 2013 (O&M), decided on 13.09.2013, after placing reliance on Full Bench judgment of the same High Court in Kulwinder Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 and also that of Apex Court in Gian Singh's case supra, has allowed the compounding of offence in a case punishable under Sections ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2018 23:52:09 :::HCHP 6 279, 337 & 338 of the Indian Penal Code in the similar circumstances with the observation that since the parties have arrived at a compromise and decided to live in peace, .
no useful purpose would be served by allowing the proceedings to continue.
7. The Apex Court in Narinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another, (2014) 6 Supreme Court Cases 466, has even quashed the FIR in a case under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code with the following observations:
"We have gone through the FIR as well which was recorded on the basis of statement of the complainant/victim. It gives an indication that the complainant was attacked allegedly by the accused persons because of some previous dispute between the parties, though nature of dispute etc. is not stated in detail. However, a very pertinent statement appears on record viz., "respectable persons have been trying for a compromise up till now, which could not be finalized". This becomes an important aspect. It appears that there have been some disputes which led to the aforesaid ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2018 23:52:09 :::HCHP 7 purported attack by the accused on the complaint. In this context when we find that the elder of the village, including Sarpanch, intervened in the matter and the parties have not only buried their hatchet .
but have decided to live peacefully in future, this becomes an important consideration. The evidence is yet to be led in the Court. It has not even started. In view of compromise between parties, there is a minimal chance of the witnesses coming forward in support of the prosecution case. Even though nature of injuries can still be established by producing the doctor as witness who conducted medical examination, it may become difficult to prove as to who caused these injuries. The chance of conviction, therefore, appear to be remote. It would, therefore, be unnecessary to drag these proceedings. We, taking all these factors into consideration cumulatively, are of the opinion that the compromise between the parties be accepted and the criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No.121 dated 14.7.2010 registered with Police Station LOPOKE, District Amritsar Rural be quashed. We order accordingly."
8. Such being the legal position coupled with the factum of both parties, have now decided not to prosecute ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2018 23:52:09 :::HCHP 8 the cases they registered against each-other as per their statements recorded separately, no useful purpose is likely to be served in case the FIRs and the consequential criminal .
proceedings are not quashed. One of the accused Raj Mandyal @ Vicky, in Cr.MMO No.68 of 2018, however, is not present after being recruited recently in Jack Riffles (Indian Army) and exemption from appearance on his behalf, as sought by learned counsel orally, is granted. Otherwise also, in view of the compromise now arrived at between the parties, they are not likely to depose against each-other. The trial of the case even if allowed to continue, is likely to end in acquittal. The pending proceedings against each other are also at its initial stage as the report filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was stated to be at the stage of its scrutiny. In such circumstances, allowing the criminal proceedings to continue in both cases would be nothing but merely an abuse of process of law.
9. In views of what has said hereinabove, both petitions are allowed. Consequently, both FIRs, i.e. FIR ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2018 23:52:09 :::HCHP 9 No.59 & of 2016 and FIR No.60 of 2016, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 504, 323 & 324 IPC, registered in Police Station, Indora, District Kangra, H.P., are hereby quashed.
.
Consequential pending criminal proceedings in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Indora, arising out of it also stand quashed. The petitions stand disposed of.
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
An authenticated copy of this judgment be sent to learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Indora, District Kangra, for compliance.
(Dharam Chand Chaudhary)
March 12, 2018 (ysc) Judge
::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2018 23:52:09 :::HCHP