Himachal Pradesh High Court
Jagat Ram & Others vs State Of H.P. & Another on 13 December, 2018
Author: Vivek Singh Thakur
Bench: Vivek Singh Thakur
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr. MMO No. 527 of 2018
.
Decided on : 13thDecember,2018
____________________________________________________________
Jagat Ram & others ......Petitioners
Versus
State of H.P. & another .....Respondents
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?_____
For the petitioner : Mr. Raman Parashar,Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. Shiv Pal Manhans
Additional Advocate General
with Mr.R.P.Singh and
Mr.R.R.Rahi, Deputy Advocate
General, for respondents No.1
and 2 and Mr. Rajiv Sharma
Advocate, for respondent
No.3.
Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge (Oral)
Present petition has been filed for quashing of FIR No. 155 of 2016 dated 17.6.2016 registered under Sections 323, 354 and 504 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code at P.S. Shimla West (Boileauganj), District Shimla H.P., and criminal proceedings initiated in pursuance thereto, on the basis of compromise, arrived at between petitioners-accused and complainant-respondent No. 3. ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2018 22:56:28 :::HCHP
2. Petitioner Jagat Ram/accused and respondent .
No. 3-complainant are present in Court, who are duly identified by their respective counsel. Statements of petitioner No.1 and respondent No.3/complainant on oath have also been recorded.
3. In the present case, petitioner No.1/accused along with his family was the tenant complainant/respondent No.3 and petitioner Jagat Ram has also lodged the cross FIR No. 156 of 2016 against the of complainant i.e. respondent No.3 and dispute, as alleged to have been occurred, for certain differences of opinion, which now stands settled.
4. Complainant (Respondent No.3), in her deposition has endorsed the compromise and has prayed for quashing the FIR and proceedings initiated against petitioners/accused. In her statement she has stated that she is complainant in case FIR No. 155 of 2016 dated 17.6.2016 registered in P.S. Shimla West (Boileauganj) District Shimla and petitioner Jagat Ram was her tenant and petitioner has also lodged a complaint against her and her family by registering an FIR No. 156 of 2016 dated 17.6.2016 in P.S. Boileauganj. She has also stated that ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2018 22:56:28 :::HCHP being a landlord and tenant, for certain differences of opinion the dispute had arisen between them, which now .
stands settled and petitioner Jagat Ram along with his family has vacated the premises and now petitioners are not her tenant, but before vacating the premises, matter has been compromised with petitioner Jagat Ram and his family and the same has been reduced in writing and placed on record with this petition. She has further stated that same has been signed by petitioner Jagat Ram and her husband and as per this compromise, she wants to withdraw the complaint lodged by her for quashing of FIR as well as criminal proceedings in pursuant thereto and in turn petitioner Jagat Ram has also agreed to withdraw her complaint in FIR No. 156 of 2016. She has stated that compromise so arrived at is out of her free will and consent and without any threat, pressure or coercion.
5. The petitioner No.1/accused Jagat Ram also, in his statement, has endorsed the statement of complainant with undertaking to withdraw his complaint for quashing FIR No. 156 of 2016 for which separate petitioner Cr.MMO No. 525 of 2018 has been filed by Sita Devi, respondent No. 3, and his family. He has ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2018 22:56:28 :::HCHP further stated that his deposition in Court is with his free consent and will and also without any threat, coercion or .
pressure etc. and prayed for disposal of present petition in terms of compromise.
6. It is contended on behalf of respondent-State that accused is not entitled to invoke inherent jurisdiction of this Court to exercise its power on the basis of compromise
7.
r to arrived at between the parties with respect to an offence not compoundable under Section 320 Cr.PC.
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 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2018 22:56:28 :::HCHP 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.
8. 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 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2018 22:56:28 :::HCHP settlement with direction to continue with criminal proceedings.
.
9. No doubt Section 354 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 482 CrPC, if Section 320 CrPC and FIR as well as criminal proceedings can be quashed by exercising inherent powers under 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 which are not compoundable where parties have settled the matter between themselves.
10. In present case, there is a dispute between the landlord and tenant on account of some differences and a cross FIR No. 156 of 2016 dated 17.6.2016 has been registered against respondent No.3 and her family, but now as petitioner Jagat Ram and his family have vacated the premises of respondent No.3 and before vacating the same, they have settled the dispute amicably, I find that it is a fit case to exercise power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and further ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2018 22:56:28 :::HCHP even otherwise if criminal proceedings are allowed to continue, no fruitful purpose is going to be served.
.
11 Further, 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 the CrPC.
12 Keeping in view nature and gravity of offence and 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 FIR No.155 of 2016, dated 17.6.2016, registered under Sections 323 354 and 504 read with Section 34 IPC at Police Station, Shimla West (Boileauganj), District Shimla, H.P. is quashed. Consequent to quashing of FIR, criminal proceedings initiated against accused in pursuance thereto, in case No. 62-2 of 2018/16 pending before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimla are also quashed.
13 Petition stands disposed of in above terms. Dasti copy on usual terms.
(Vivek Singh Thakur) Judge December 13, 2018 (ms) ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2018 22:56:28 :::HCHP .
::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2018 22:56:28 :::HCHP