Himachal Pradesh High Court
Nikhil Arora vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Another on 25 May, 2023
Author: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Bench: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr.MMO No.456 of 2023 Decided on:25.05.2023 .
Nikhil Arora ......Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Another ...Respondents __________________________________________________ Coram:
Hon'ble Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?
For the petitioner : Mr. Anirudh Sharma, Advocate.
Petitioner, in person.
For the respondents : Ms. Leena Guleria, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No.1/State.
Respondent No.2/complainant, in person.
Mr. Vinod Kumar, ASI, P.S. Dharampur, District Solan, H.P. ___________________________________________________ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge (Oral).
The petitioner has prayed for quashing of F.I.R.
No.03/2022, dated 01.01.2022, registered under Sections 354, 509 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code at Police station Dharampur, District Solan, H.P. Further prayer has also been made for setting aside the consequent judicial proceedings.::: Downloaded on - 27/05/2023 20:30:38 :::CIS 2
Basis of making this prayer is the compromise executed between the parties on 02.05.2023.
2. The F.I.R was registered against the petitioner on the .
basis of a complaint made by respondent No.2. The allegation was that in a party for celebrating the New Year on 31.12.2021, some persons from M.M.U Hospital, Solan, hurled filthy language and tried to make sexual advances against the complainant.
3. The petitioner and respondent No.2 have attended today's proceedings. They have been identified by their respective learned counsel. In terms of separate statements recorded today of respondent No.2 as well as petitioner, the parties have stated to have executed compromise deed on 02.05.2023 (Annexure P-2). In terms of the compromise deed, respondent-complainant has expressed her unwillingness to pursue the FIR in question. Even in her statement recorded today, respondent No.2/complainant has stated that she does not want to continue with the FIR and has no objection in case the FIR in question is quashed and the resultant judicial proceedings are set aside.
::: Downloaded on - 27/05/2023 20:30:38 :::CIS 34. The law laid down in respect of exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing or for refusing to quash the FIR and resultant .
proceedings on the basis of compromise effected by the parties laid down in (2012) 10 SCC 303, titled Gian Singh versus State of Punjab; (2014) 6 SCC 466, titled Narinder Parbatbhai Aahir versus State of Gujarat, has been noticed again by Hon'ble Apex Court in (2019) 5 SCC 688, titled as State of Madhya Pradesh versus Laxmi Narayan, with following observations:-
"15. Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of this Court on the point, referred to hereinabove, it is observed and held as under:
15.1 That the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves;
15.2. Such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved heinous and serious ::: Downloaded on - 27/05/2023 20:30:38 :::CIS 4 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;
.
15.3 Similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes like 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;
15.4 Offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act etc. would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal proceedings for the offence under Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act etc. which have a serious impact on the society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code, on the ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst themselves. 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 ::: Downloaded on - 27/05/2023 20:30:38 :::CIS 5 collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to framing 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. However, such an exercise by the High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and the charge sheet is filed/charge is framed and/or during the trial. Such exercise is not permissible when the matter is still under investigation. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in paragraphs 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in the case of Narinder Singh (supra) should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove;
15.5 While exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non-compoundable offences, which are private in nature and do not have a serious impart on society, on the ground that there is a settlement/ compromise between the victim and the offender, the High Court is required to consider the antecedents of the accused; the conduct of the accused, namely, whether the accused was absconding and why he was ::: Downloaded on - 27/05/2023 20:30:38 :::CIS 6 absconding, how he had managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise."
.
5. Respondent No.2 is the complainant in the FIR in question. The offences alleged in the FIR though are serious in nature, however, the fact remains that the parties have resolved their disputes amicably.
6. Considering the fact that petitioners and complainant, respondent No.2 herein, now have resolved the dispute in terms of the compromise-deed Annexure P-2 of the Paper Book and that respondent No.2 (complainant) does not wish to pursue the complaint/FIR any further, no useful purpose will be served by continuing the proceedings arising out of the FIR in question. The possibility of conviction in such circumstances would be very very remote. When the complainant does not want to hold the accused responsible, then quashing of such FIR, more so in the facts and circumstances of the case, would certainly be in the interest of justice. Accordingly, the petition is allowed.
F.I.R. No.02/2022, dated 01.01.2022, registered under Sections 354, 354-A(i)(iv) and 323 of the Indian Penal Code at ::: Downloaded on - 27/05/2023 20:30:38 :::CIS 7 Police station Dharampur, District Solan, H.P., is quashed and consequent judicial proceedings are set aside.
The pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, .
shall also stand disposed of.
(Jyotsna Rewal Dua)
May 25, 2023 Judge
(Yashwant)
r to
::: Downloaded on - 27/05/2023 20:30:38 :::CIS