Himachal Pradesh High Court
Inderjeet Singh Son Of vs State Of Punjab And Ors. Reported In ... on 12 April, 2022
Author: Vivek Singh Thakur
Bench: Vivek Singh Thakur
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
ON THE 12th DAY OF APRIL, 2022
.
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIVEK SINGH THAKUR
CRIMINAL MISC.PETITION (MAIN) U/S 482 CRPC NO. 703 OF
2021
Between:-
1. INDERJEET SINGH SON OF
SHRI JASWANT SIGH, RESIDENT
OF VILLAGE DHAREWAL, PO
MANJOLLI, TEHSIL NALAGARH,
DISTRICT SOLAN HP AGE ABOUT
22 YEARS.
2. HIRA SINGH, SON OF
SH.GOPAL SINGH, RESIDENT OF
VILLAGE MOGOO PURA, PO
MANJOLLI, TEHSIL NALGARH,
DISTRICT SOLAN AGE ABOUT 22
YEARS.
3. SURAJ KUMAR, SON OF SHRI
SOHAN SINGH, R/O VILLAGE
DARE MOHARA, PO MANJOLLI,
TEHSIL NALAGARH, DISTRICT
SOLAN HP AGE 22 YEARS.
4. JAGMEET SINGH, SON OF SHRI
AJMER SINGH, RESIDENT OF
VILLAGE RASIDPUR, PO BELE,
TEHSIL CHAMKOUR SAHIB,
DISTRICT ROPAR PUNJAB AGE
ABOUT 25 YEARS.
5. PARDEEP KUMAR, SON OF
SH.KHIM PRASAD, R/O VILLAGE
DHAR MAJRA, PO MANJOLLI,
TEHSIL NALAGARH, DISTRICT
::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2022 20:10:34 :::CIS
2
SOLAN AGE ABOUT 23 YEARS.
....PETITIONERS
.
(BY SHRI AMARJEET SINGH RANA AND MS. KAMLESH KUMARI,
ADVOCATES)
AND
1. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,
THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
(HOME), TO THE GOVERNMENT OF
HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA-2.
2. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
DISTRICT SOLAN H.P.
3. RAVI CHOUDHARY, SON OF SHRI
AMAR CHAND CHOUDHARY, R/O
VILLAGE DHARMAJRA, POST OFFICE
MANJOLLI, TEHSIL NALGARH, DISTT
SOLAN H.P.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SH. RAJU RAM RAHI, DEPUTY ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR R-1
AND 2)
(BY SH. ASHOK KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-3)
Whether approved for reporting?
This petition coming on for orders this day, the Court passed the following:
ORDER
This petition has been preferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 198, dated 19.09.2017, registered under Sections 147, 149, 323, 324, 506 and 34 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter in short 'IPC'), at Police Station Nalagarh, District Solan ::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2022 20:10:34 :::CIS 3 HP and quashing of proceedings initiated in pursuant thereto pending in the concerned Court.
.
2 Respondent No.3 Ravi Choudhary is complainant, who was present in Court on 6 th April, 2022, in his statement recorded on oath on that day, has stated that on the day of incident, an altercation took place which resulted into the incident and in sequel thereto, he had lodged FIR in present case. He has further deposed that three accused Suraj, Pradep and Inderjeet are resident of his village, whereas, two other accused Hira Singh and Jagmeet Singh are residents of nearby area, though at some distance from his village. He has stated that after incident, with intervention of families, they have entered into a compromise and petitioners have also not repeated such incident thereafter, rather, they have developed good relations with each other and they are in talking terms and living peacefully and to continue harmonious and peaceful relations and also keeping in view future of petitioners, who are young educated unemployed persons, he has decided to withdraw the case as well as criminal proceedings initiated against present petitioners. It has been further stated by him that he has deposed in Court out of his free will, consent and also without any kind of threat, coercion or pressure etc. 3 Petitioners namely Inderjeet Singh, Hira Singh, Suraj Kumar and Pardeep Kumar, who were present on 6 th April, 2022, ::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2022 20:10:34 :::CIS 4 whereas petitioner Jagmeet Singh, who is present in Court today, vide separate statements, recorded on oath, endorsing the .
statement of complainant as true and correct, have stated that they have undertaken not to repeat such incident in future and also to maintain peaceful and harmonious relations with each other. They have also deposed that compromise, duly signed by them, is out of their free will, consent and also without any kind of threat, coercion or pressure etc.
4. to Quashing of FIR in present petition has been prayed on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties, photocopy whereof has been placed on record, which is duly signed by parties.
The petitioners and the complainant have endorsed the compromise.
5 Though no reply has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos 1 and 2/State, but status report stands filed and quashing of FIR has been opposed on the ground that petitioners have been charge sheeted for commission of offence under Section 324 IPC and there is every likelihood of their conviction before the trial Court 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 process of law.
::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2022 20:10:34 :::CIS 56 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 ::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2022 20:10:34 :::CIS 6 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.
7 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 8 r to 482 Cr.P.C. has recognized that these powers are not inhibited by provisions of Section 320 Cr.P.C.
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.
9 No doubt Sections 324 IPC is compoundable only with the permission of Court. However, 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 ::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2022 20:10:34 :::CIS 7 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 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 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.
11. Keeping in view the fact that complainant, who appeared in person and endorsed the compromise arrived at with petitioners/accused and now they are having good relations with each other, I find that it is a fit case to exercise power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
12 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. 198, dated 19.09.2017 registered against the petitioners/accused in P.S. Nalagarh District Solan H.P. is quashed.
::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2022 20:10:34 :::CIS 8Consequent 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.
April 12, 2022 (Vivek Singh Thakur)
(ms) Judge
r to
::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2022 20:10:34 :::CIS