Himachal Pradesh High Court
Lakhwinder Singh & Others vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Others on 2 August, 2023
Author: Virender Singh
Bench: Virender Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No.685 of 2023 .
Decided on : 02.08.2023
Lakhwinder Singh & Others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Others ...Respondents
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners : Mr. Anshul Bansal, Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. H.S. Rawat, Additional Advocate General, for respondent No.1.
Mr. Piyush Dhanotia, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3.
Virender Singh, Judge (oral).
Petitioners have filed the present petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'CrPC'), for quashing of FIR No.384 of 2020, dated 10th December, 2020, registered with Police Station, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P., under Sections 323, 325 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC'), and Section 3(1)(r) of the Scheduled Caste and 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
::: Downloaded on - 03/08/2023 20:37:43 :::CIS 2Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the 'SC & ST Act'), as well as, the .
proceedings resultant thereto, which are stated to be pending before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judgecum Special Judge, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P., (hereinafter referred to as the 'trial Court'), in the shape of Case No.2 of 2022, titled as State of H.P. Vs. Lakhwinder Singh & Others, on the ground of compromise with respondents No.2 and 3.
2. As per the case set up by the petitioners, the FIR, in question, has been registered against them, at the instance of respondent No.2.
3. After registration of the FIR, the police has conducted the investigation and submitted a report under Section 173(2) Cr.PC, which is now pending adjudication before the learned trial Court.
4. It is the specific case of the petitioners that in order to live peacefully and to maintain good relations, with the intervention of the respectables of the society, the parties to the present petition i.e., petitioners, respondents No.2 and 3, have settled the matter, after resolving all the differences ::: Downloaded on - 03/08/2023 20:37:43 :::CIS 3 between them. The terms and conditions of the compromise were reduced into writing, copy of which is annexed with the .
petition, as Annexure P2.
5. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to allow the petition and to quash the FIR, in question, as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto.
6. When put to notice, the State has filed the reply, disclosing therein the factual position about the manner, in which the FIR, in question, has been registered, at the instance of respondent No.2, and the manner, in which, the investigation has been conducted by the Police.
7. Highlighting the fact that the offences committed by the petitioners, in the present case, are not against an individual, but, against the society, at large, as such, a prayer has been made to dismiss the petition.
8. The person, who has put the criminal machinery into motion by making statement under Section 154 Cr.PC, is respondent No.2. The said respondent, along with injured, respondent No.3, have appeared before this Court and both of them, have made separate statements, on oath, that on the ::: Downloaded on - 03/08/2023 20:37:43 :::CIS 4 statement of respondent No.2, FIR, in question, has been registered, in which, the police has conducted the investigation .
and submitted report under Section 173(2) Cr.PC. They have also categorically stated that they and the petitioners are residents of the same area and in order to live peacefully, in the society and to maintain cordial relations, the compromise has been effected between them.
9. Both, the complainant, as well as, the injured, have deposed, in unequivocal terms, that in view of the compromise, they have no objection, if the petition is allowed and the FIR, in question, as well as, proceedings resultant thereto, are quashed.
10. Similar type of statement has been made by the petitioners, on oath.
11. In the present case, on the report submitted by the police, cognizance has been taken and the petitioners have been ordered to be summoned. The case is now fixed for checking of the challan.
12. The person, who has put the criminal machinery into motion, by leveling the allegations against the petitioners, ::: Downloaded on - 03/08/2023 20:37:43 :::CIS 5 when appeared in the witnessbox, has stated that he has no objection, if the petition is allowed, in view of the compromise.
.
13. The person, who has allegedly suffered the injuries, in the incident, is respondent No.3. He has also deposed that he has no objection, if the petition is allowed in view of the compromise between the petitioners and respondent No.2. In such situation, the chances of the success of the trial, pending before the learned trial Court, against the petitioners, are not so bright.
14. Moreover, the primary purpose of the law is to maintain peace and harmony in the society. The compromise, which has been effected between the parties, deserves to be accepted by this Court, as it would not only save the efforts of the petitioners, as well as, respondents No.2 and 3, to live peacefully, but also save the precious judicial time of the learned trial Court, which, the learned trial Court, would be able to devote for the decision of some other serious matter.
15. So far as the objection raised by the learned Additional Advocate General qua the fact that the offences committed by the petitioners, in the present case, are not ::: Downloaded on - 03/08/2023 20:37:43 :::CIS 6 against an individual, but, against the society at large is concerned, this objection does not hold water, as the .
petitioners, as well as, the respondents No.2 and 3 are the residents of the same area.
16. The person belonging to different castes are expected to live peacefully. When, the petitioners, as well as, respondents No.2 and 3, have entered into compromise with the sole object to live peacefully, then the submission, which has been made by learned Additional Advocate General, deserves to be ignored and the same is accordingly ignored.
17. Moreover, the present case does not fall within the exception, as carved out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Narinder Singh and others versus State of Punjab and another, (2014) 6 Supreme Court Cases 466, whereby the Hon'ble Supreme Court has formulated the guidelines for accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings.
18. Perusal of judgment, referred to above, clearly depicts that in para 29.1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has ::: Downloaded on - 03/08/2023 20:37:43 :::CIS 7 returned the findings that power conferred under Section 482 CrPC, is to be distinguished from the power, which lies in the .
Court, to compound the offences under Section 320 CrPC.
19. No doubt, under Section 482 CrPC, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings, even, in those cases, which are not compoundable, where, the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised, in view of the guiding principles, as decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Narinder Singh's case (supra). The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced, as under:
29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising 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 the criminal proceedings:
29.1. Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which ::: Downloaded on - 03/08/2023 20:37:43 :::CIS 8 are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves.
However, this power is to be exercised .
sparingly and with caution.
29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure: (i) ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. While exercising the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.
29.3. Such a power is not be exercised in those prosecutions 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. Similarly, for offences alleged to have been 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 the victim and the offender.
29.4. On the other, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves.
29.5. While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to whether the ::: Downloaded on - 03/08/2023 20:37:43 :::CIS 9 possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice .
and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases.
29.6. Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore is to be generally treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to proving the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc. Medical report in respect of injuries suffered by the victim can generally be the guiding factor. On the basis of this prima facie analysis, the High Court can examine as to whether there is a strong possibility of conviction or the chances of conviction are remote and bleak. In the former case it can refuse to accept the settlement and quash the criminal proceedings whereas in the later case it would be permissible for the High Court to accept the plea compounding the offence based on complete settlement between the parties. At this stage, the Court can also be swayed by the fact that the settlement between the parties is going ::: Downloaded on - 03/08/2023 20:37:43 :::CIS 10 to result in harmony between them which may improve their future relationship.
.
29.7. While deciding whether to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code or not, timings of settlement play a crucial role. Those cases where the settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged commission of offence and the matter is still under investigation, the High Court may be liberal in accepting the settlement to quash the criminal proceedings/investigation. It is because of the reason that at this stage the investigation is still on and even the charge sheet has not been filed. Likewise, those cases where the charge is framed but the evidence is yet to start or the evidence is still at infancy stage, the High Court can show benevolence in exercising its powers favourably, but after prima facie assessment of the circumstances/material mentioned above. On the other hand, where the prosecution evidence is almost complete or after the conclusion of the evidence the matter is at the stage of argument, normally the High Court should refrain from exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code, as in such cases the trial court would be in a position to decide the case finally on merits and to come a conclusion as to whether the offence under Section 307 IPC is committed or not.
Similarly, in those cases where the conviction is already recorded by the trial court and the matter is at the appellate stage before the High Court, mere compromise between the parties would not be a ground to accept the same resulting in acquittal of the offender who has already been convicted by the trial court. Here charge is proved under Section 307 IPC and ::: Downloaded on - 03/08/2023 20:37:43 :::CIS 11 conviction is already recorded of a heinous crime and, therefore, there is no question of sparing a convict found guilty of such a crime".
.
20. Judging the facts and circumstances of the present case, in the light of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Narinder Singh's case (supra), this Court is satisfied that it is a fit case, where, the powers, under r to Section 482 CrPC, should be exercised, to quash the FIR in question, as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto.
21. Considering all these facts, the petition is allowed and FIR No.384 of 2020, dated 10th December, 2020, registered with Police Station, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P., under Sections 323, 325 read with Section 34 IPC, and Section 3(1)
(r) of the SC & ST Act, as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, which are stated to be pending before the learned trial Court, in Case No.2 of 2022, titled as State of H.P. Vs. Lakhwinder Singh & Others, are ordered to be quashed.
22. The compromise deed, Annexure P2, and the statements of the parties, made today, in the Court, shall form part of the judgment.
::: Downloaded on - 03/08/2023 20:37:43 :::CIS 1223. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly.
.
( Virender Singh )
Judge
August 02, 2023(ps)
r to
::: Downloaded on - 03/08/2023 20:37:43 :::CIS