Himachal Pradesh High Court
Deepanshu & Others vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 21 November, 2019
Author: Vivek Singh Thakur
Bench: Vivek Singh Thakur
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
SHIMLA
Cr.MMO No. 421 of 2019
.
Date of Decision: November 21, 2019
Deepanshu & others ...Petitioners.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh ..Respondent.
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the Petitioners: Mr. N.S. Chandel, Senior Advocate with
r Mr.Vinod K. Gupta, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. S.C. Sharma, Additional Advocate
General, with M/s R.P. Singh & Kamal
Kant, Deputy Advocate General.
Vivek Singh Thakur, J (oral)
The instant petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.PC') has been filed by petitioners, on the basis of compromise deed (Annexure P-3) arrived at between them, for quashing of FIRs No.29 and 30 of 2019 dated 26.02.2019, registered at Police Station, West, Shimla, H.P., under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (herein after referred to as 'IPC') and subsequent proceedings arising thereof.
2. Rahul Sharma, Jagpal Sharma and Ritik Palsra were present in Court on 25.07.2019. They were duly identified by 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 25/11/2019 20:24:40 :::HCHP 2their learned counsel and on that day their statements on oath were also recorded.
3. Deepanshu, Rahul Sharma, Kapil Dev, Sunil Ram, .
Sanjeev Sharma, Kamal Dev Sharma, Kamlesh Kumar, Chirag, Rohit Thakur, Rahul Chinta, Ritik Palsra, Avinash Gautam, Ajay Kumar and Jagpal Sharma, were present in the Court on 12.09.2019. They were duly identified by their learned counsel and on that day their statements on oath were recorded.
4. Thereafter, on 23.10.2019, Ravi Kumar was present in the Court. He was duly identified by his learned counsel and his statement on oath was recorded.
5. In his statement Deepanshu has stated that he is the complainant in case FIR No.30 of 2019 dated 26.02.2019 and an accused in FIR No.29 of 2019 and both the FIRs have arisen from one incident, taken place in the College and in fact, untoward incident had taken place on account of misunderstanding, which has now been removed and they have realized that the said incident could have been avoided, but unfortunately it had happened, which resulted into lodging of cross FIRs against each other. He has further stated that now some of accused, involved in both FIRs, have left the College and are pursuing their further study either in Himachal Pradesh University, Summer Hill, Shimla or in ITI or pursuing their studies independently like for course of Chartered Accountant and those, who are studying in College are living in peace and harmony and have developed good relations with each other and intend to continue cordial relations in future ::: Downloaded on - 25/11/2019 20:24:40 :::HCHP 3 so as to avoid any disturbance in studies being pursued by them and also for better future. He has further stated that students and Ex-students, involved in both the FIRs, are present in Court .
today except petitioner No.4 Ravinder Sharma and petitioner-
complainant No.16 Ravi and he and Rahul are making this statement on behalf of all and since morning they have spent their time in Court together, waiting for the turn of the case in the Court. He has further stated that they have also undertaken not to repeat such incident again and to maintain an atmosphere in the College, congenial for studies and are interested for pursuing studies and not to become criminals and they have compromised the matter. He has also stated that he has deposed in this Court out of his free will, consent and without any external pressure, coercion or threat of any kind.
6. In his statement Rahul Sharma has stated that he is the complainant in case FIR No.29 of 2019 dated 26.02.2019 and also accused in FIR No.30 of 2019 and both the FIRs have arisen from one incident, taken place in the College and in fact, he has reiterated the statement made by Deepanshu and lastly he has stated that he has deposed in this Court out of his free will, consent and without any external pressure, coercion or threat of any kind.
7. In joint statement of Kapil Dev, Sunil Ram, Sanjeev Sharma, Kamal Dev Sharma, Kamlesh Kumar, Chirag, Rohit Thakur, Rahul Chinta, Ritik Palsra, Avinash Gautam, Ajay Kumar and Jagpal Sharma, they have endorsed statements made by ::: Downloaded on - 25/11/2019 20:24:40 :::HCHP 4 Deepanshu and Rahul Sharma and they have also undertaken not to repeat such incident in future and to concentrate in their studies for their better future and they have also felt that .
untoward incident could have been avoided and in future they would be more careful. They have also stated that they are deposing in this Court out of their free will, consent and without any external pressure, coercion or threat of any kind.
8. In his separate statement Ravi has also stated that his name has been mentioned as accused in FIR No.30 of 2019, whereas he was not involved in the case, however, he was in contact with the college students being an ex-student of Government College Kotshera and knowing students involved in both the FIR and now they have amicably settled the matter and are continuing their studies with peace and harmony and have compromised the matter. He has also stated that he is running a shop in Khalini and earning his livelihood alongwith his brother and in aforesaid circumstances and for the statements of other (petitioners/ accused/complainants in both cases), he is in agreement with the compromise arrived between the parties. He has also stated that he has deposed in the Court out of his free will, consent and without any coercion, threat or pressure of any kind.
9. It is contended on behalf of the respondent-State that petitioners are not entitled to invoke inherent jurisdiction of this Court to exercise its power on the basis of compromise ::: Downloaded on - 25/11/2019 20:24:40 :::HCHP 5 arrived at between the parties with respect to an offence not compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C.
10. 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 no category or cases for this ::: Downloaded on - 25/11/2019 20:24:40 :::HCHP 6 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.
.
11. The Apex Court in Parbatbhai Aahir alias Parbhathbhai Bhimsinghbhai Karmur and others vs. State of Gujarat and another, (2017) 9 SCC 641 summarizing the board principles regarding inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has recognized that these powers are not inhibited by provisions of Section 320 Cr.P.C.
12. 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.
13. No doubt Sections 147 and 149 of IPC are not compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C. However, as explained by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh's, Narinder Singh's, Parbhatbhai Aahir's case and Laxmi Narayan's cases supra, power of High Court under Section 482 Cr.PC is not inhibited by the provisions of Section 320 CrPC and FIR as well as criminal proceedings can be quashed by exercising inherent powers ::: Downloaded on - 25/11/2019 20:24:40 :::HCHP 7 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.
14. Now, the dispute has been amicably resolved between the private parties on the basis of compromise arrived at between them, as after the incident no such occurrence has been repeated by them and now their relations have become cordial and they are living in peace and harmony. Otherwise also, persons involved from both sides are students and pursuing their further studies either in the same College or University or for Chartered Accountant, I am of the considered view that no fruitful purpose shall be served to continue the proceedings against the petitioners.
15. 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.
16. Offences in question, for material on record, do not fall in the category of offences termed to be prohibited, in the pronouncements of Apex Court, to be compounded exercising power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. In view of statements of ::: Downloaded on - 25/11/2019 20:24:40 :::HCHP 8 parties, recorded on oath in this Court, probability of conviction is too remote.
17. 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 FIRs No.29 and 30 of 2019 dated 26.02.2019, registered at Police Station, West, Shimla, H.P., are quashed. Consequent to quashing of FIRs, criminal proceedings, if any, initiated against petitioners-
accused persons in pursuance thereto, are also quashed.
Petition stands disposed of in above terms.
Copy Dasti.
(Vivek Singh Thakur), Judge.
November 21, 2019 (Purohit) ::: Downloaded on - 25/11/2019 20:24:40 :::HCHP