Himachal Pradesh High Court
Smt. Suman Lata Kuthiala vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Another on 27 August, 2019
Author: Vivek Singh Thakur
Bench: Vivek Singh Thakur
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,
SHIMLA
Cr.MMO No. 430 of 2019
.
Date of decision: 27.8.2019
Smt. Suman Lata Kuthiala ...Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & another. ...Respondents.
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Advocate, along with
r Smt. Suman Lata Kuthiala, petitioner in
person.
For the Respondents: M/s. S.C. Sharma & Desh Raj Thakur,
Additional Advocate Generals with Mr. R.P.
Singh Dy. Advocate General, for respondent
No. 1.
Mr. Atul G. Sood, Advocate, for respondent
No.2 along with Anil Kumar Sood,
respondent No.2 in person.
Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge (oral)
The instant petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (herein after referred to as 'Cr.PC') has been filed by petitioner-accused, on the basis of compromise arrived at between petitioner-accused Suman Lata Kuthiala and complainant-respondent No. 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 02:40:16 :::HCHP 22, Anil Kumar Sood for quashing FIR No. 219 of 2013, dated 15.11.2013, under Sections 448, 380 and 201of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Petitioner-accused, Smt. Suman Lata Kuthiala and respondent .
No.2-complainant Anil Kumar Sood are present in person. They have been duly identified by their respective counsel and their statements, on oath, have also been recorded.
3. Respondent No. 2-complainant, in his statement, has deposed that he was tenant of the petitioner's Shop No.503 and on the day of incident, FIR was lodged against petitioner on account of a misunderstanding and now the said misunderstanding stands removed and he has vacated the shop No. 503 and petitioner has inducted his wife Sangeeta Sood as a tenant in another shop i.e. Shop No. 504 on the same terms and conditions, as agreed between themselves earlier and dispute between them stands resolved and in order to live peaceful life, without any tension, they have buried their differences and therefore he has agreed to withdraw the FIR in question and the consequential criminal proceedings arising thereto, if any. In this regard a compromise, reduced into writing, has been placed on record with this petition as Annexure P-2, which has been signed by him along with his wife as well as the petitioner and he has identified his and his wife's signatures thereon. He has also stated that he has signed the compromise deed and has deposed in the ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 02:40:17 :::HCHP 3 Court out of his free will, consent and also without any coercion, pressure or threat etc.
4. Petitioner-accused in her statement has endorsed the .
statement of complainant and also the compromise entered into between her and the complainant Annexure P-2 and her signatures thereon. She has also deposed that she has signed the Compromise Deed and has deposed in the Court out of her free will, consent and without any pressure or coercion of any kind.
5. to It is contended on behalf of respondent No.1-State that petitioner is not entitled to invoke inherent jurisdiction of this Court to exercise its power on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties with respect to an offence not compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C.
6. It is apt to record herein that a 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.P.C., 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 ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 02:40:17 :::HCHP 4 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.P.C. 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.
7. The Apex Court in case Narinder Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab and Ors. reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, and also in State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Lami 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.
::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 02:40:17 :::HCHP 58. No doubt Section 380 IPC is not compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C., however, as explained by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh's, Narinder Singh'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 Cr.P.C. and FIR as well as criminal proceedings can be quashed by exercising inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.PC, if it is 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.
9. 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.
10. 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 statement of respondent No. 2-complainant, recorded on oath in this Court, it is a fit case for allowing the petition.
::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 02:40:17 :::HCHP 611. Keeping in view the ratio of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and considering facts and evidence of the case in its entirety, present petition is allowed and matter is permitted to be compounded.
.
Consequently, FIR No. 219 of 2013, dated 15.11.2013, registered at Police Station, Sadar, District Shimla H.P. is quashed. Consequent to quashing of FIR, criminal proceedings arisen in pursuance thereto, if any, also stand quashed.
pending application(s), if any.
r to Petition stands allowed in the aforesaid terms, so also (Vivek Singh Thakur), th 27 August, 2019 Judge (Guleria) ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 02:40:17 :::HCHP