Himachal Pradesh High Court
Rakesh Kumar And Others vs The State Of Himachal Pradesh & Another on 21 March, 2018
Author: Vivek Singh Thakur
Bench: Vivek Singh Thakur
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No. 49 of 2018 .
Date of decision: 21.3.2018
Rakesh Kumar and others. ...Petitioners
Versus
The State of Himachal Pradesh & another. ...Respondents
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners:
For the Respondents:
r to Mr.Pawan K. Sharma, Advocate.
Mr.Shiv Pal Manhans, Additional Advocate General with Mr.Raju Ram Rahi, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No. 1.
Mr.Dheeraj K. Vashisht, Advocate, for respondent No. 2.
Vivek Singh Thakur J. (Oral).
This petition has been filed by petitioners-accused, for quashing FIR No. 215 of 2016, dated 1.7.2016, under Sections 420 and 120B of Indian Penal Code, registered with Police Station, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour, H.P. and criminal proceedings, if any, initiated in pursuance thereto, on the basis of compromise, arrived at between the petitioners and respondent No. 2.
2. Complainant-respondent No. 2, present in person in Court, duly identified by counsel, stated in his statement recorded on oath in the Court that petitioner No. 1 in connivance with petitioners No. 2 and 3 had got a sim issued in the name of respondent No. 2-complainant by annexing copy of his adhar card. On coming to know the about the act of petitioners, he lodged a complaint with the police, whereupon FIR was registered. Now as per information given by petitioners, the SIM bearing No. 8679773885 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes ::: Downloaded on - 26/03/2018 22:59:26 :::HCHP 2 Cr. MMO No. 49 of 2018 issued in his name (respondent No. 2), used by petitioner No. 1, has been discontinued and is not in use. Now the petitioners have realized their mistake and have apologized for the same. The FIR was registered in the .
year 2016 and since then challan has not been put in the Court and petitioners are facing prolonged inquiry, as such on request of petitioners, he has agreed to compromise the matter and thus seeks permission to compound the matter.
3. Separate joint statement of petitioners has also been recorded, wherein they have repented for commission of offence and have undertaken not to commit mistake in future.
4. It is contended on behalf of respondent No. 1-State that accused persons are 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.PC.
5. Offence under Section 120B of the IPC is non-compoundable. 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 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 - 26/03/2018 22:59:26 :::HCHP 3 Cr. MMO No. 49 of 2018 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.
6. Hon'ble Supreme 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 settlement with direction to continue with criminal proceedings.
7. Section 320 (2) Cr.P.C. provides that offence under Section 420 IPC can be compounded by the person cheated but with permission of the Court.
8. No doubt Section 120-B 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 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 ::: Downloaded on - 26/03/2018 22:59:26 :::HCHP 4 Cr. MMO No. 49 of 2018 inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.PC, it was 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. Offences in question 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 respondent No. 2-complainant and petitioners-accused, recorded on oath in this Court, probability of conviction is also too remote.
10. 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. 215, dated 1.7.2016, registered under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC at Police Station Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour, H.P. is quashed. Consequently, any further criminal proceedings, if any, is also liable to be quashed. Petition stands disposed of in above terms.
(Vivek Singh Thakur), Judge.
21st December, 2018 (KRS) ::: Downloaded on - 26/03/2018 22:59:26 :::HCHP