Himachal Pradesh High Court
Sh. Saurav Sharma vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Anr on 30 August, 2019
Author: Dharam Chand Chaudhary
Bench: Dharam Chand Chaudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
.
Cr.MMO No. 468 of 2019
Date of decision: August 30, 2019.
Sh. Saurav Sharma. ......Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & anr. ......Respondents.
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Judge .
Whether approved for reporting? 1 Yes.
For the petitioner : Mr. V.D. Khidtta, Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. Vikas Rathore, Addl. AG, for
respondent No. 1.
Respondent No. 2 in person.
Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Judge (Oral)
Though status report has not been filed, however, the record of the case has been produced by Shri Vikas Sharma, Inspector/SHO Police Station, Rohru.
2. The record reveal that on completion of the investigation, the police has filed the challan in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohru, District Shimla against the accused-petitioner under Sections 354-D, 506, 509 and 323 IPC. The charge also stand framed against him, 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? yes.
::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 02:54:58 :::HCHP 2however, the prosecution evidence is not yet recorded and for that purpose the case is stated to be listed on 20.11.2019. The .
respondent No.2-complainant has now settled the dispute with the accused-petitioner amicably, hence she is no more interested to prosecute him in the pending criminal case.
3. It is seen that the offence, the accused-petitioner allegedly committed, under Sections 506 and 323 IPC is sub section (2) thereof.
compoundable under sub Section (1) of Section 320 Cr.P.C., whereas, the offence punishable under Section 509 IPC under It is thus the offence allegedly committed by the accused-petitioner under Section 354-D is not compoundable. This petition has, therefore, been filed for quashing the FIR and consequential criminal proceedings on the basis of the compromise Annexure P-2 to this petition.
4. The law on the point that a FIR registered with the allegations qua commission of a non-compoundable offence can be quashed or not is no more res integra as it has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court in Gian Singh versus State of Punjab and another, (2012) 10 SCC 303 that the High Court while exercising inherent powers vested in it under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure may quash FIR/criminal proceedings in a case where the offence allegedly committed by the accused is not heinous or serious in nature and the wrong basically done to the victim. As per this judgment, the inherent powers should ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 02:54:58 :::HCHP 3 be exercised only in appropriate cases having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or other .
transactions of like nature including matrimonial or the case relating to dowry etc. The compounding of offence, however, is not permissible in those cases registered with serious allegations and heinous in nature like rape, dacoity and corruption etc.
5. The Apex Court in Narinder Singh and others V. State of Punjab and another, (2014) 6 SCC 466 while quashing the FIR in a case registered under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code has held as under:
"We have gone through the FIR as well which was recorded on the basis of statement of the complainant/victim.
It gives an indication that the complainant was attacked allegedly by the accused persons because of some previous dispute between the parties, though nature of dispute etc. is not stated in detail. However, a very pertinent statement appears on record viz., 'respectable persons have been trying for a compromise up till now, which could not be finalized'. This becomes an important aspect. It appears that there have been some disputes which led to the aforesaid purported attack by the accused on the complainant. In this context when we find that the elders of the village, ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 02:54:58 :::HCHP 4 including Sarpanch, intervened in the matter and the parties have not only .
buried their hatchet but have decided to live peacefully in future, this becomes an important consideration.
The evidence is yet to be led in the Court. It has not even started. In view of compromise between parties, there is a minimal chance of the witnesses coming forward in support of the prosecution case. Even though nature of injuries can still be established by producing the doctor as witness who conducted medical examination, it may become difficult to prove as to who caused these injuries. The chances of conviction, therefore, appear to be remote. It would, therefore, be unnecessary to drag these proceedings.
We, taking all these factors into consideration cumulatively, are of the opinion that the compromise between the parties be accepted and the criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No.121 dated 14.7.2010 registered with Police Station LOPOKE, District Amritsar Rural be quashed. We order accordingly."
6. The Apex Court in a recent judgment titled Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 02:54:58 :::HCHP 5 others V. State of Gujarat and another (2017) 9 SCC 641 has reiterated the broad principles need to be followed while .
considering the prayer for quashing the FIR and consequential criminal proceedings on the basis of compromise, which reads as follow:-
"16. The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject, may be summarised in the following propositions :
16.1. Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court;
16.2. The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a First Information Report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence.
While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 02:54:58 :::HCHP 6 quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable.
.
16.3. In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power;
16.4. While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court;
16.5. The decision as to whether a complaint or First Information Report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated;
16.6. In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence.
Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 02:54:58 :::HCHP 7 appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have .
settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences;
16.7. As
distinguished from
offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming serious or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing in so far as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned;
16.8. Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute;
16.9. In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 02:54:58 :::HCHP 8 16.10. There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions 16.8 and .
16.9 above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the state have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance.
7. It is, therefore, seen from the legal principles settled in the judgments cited supra that the inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings should be exercised to secure the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of process of law. Also that, criminal proceedings should be quashed in those cases where the possibility of conviction is remote and the continuation of the criminal proceedings would cause oppression and prejudice to the accused. There should be due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence committed. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed even if the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. It has further been held in this judgment that such offences are not private in nature ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 02:54:58 :::HCHP 9 but have serious impact upon the society at large. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the .
overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences.
8. Applying the ratio of the judgments (supra) in the given facts and circumstances of this case, the respondent No. 2- complainant and accused-petitioner have now settled all disputes r to amicably. The statements of respondent No.2-complainant and accused-petitioner have been recorded separately.
the compromise Annexure P-2 respondent No.2-complainant is In view of now no more interested to prosecute the accused-petitioner nay further and rightly so because they both are living in the same locality and interested in maintaining cordial relations and to live in peace and harmony. The respondent No.2-complainant in the changed circumstances, therefore, is not going to depose against the accused-petitioner. Therefore, the chances of success of trial, if allowed to continue, are very bleak and to allow the proceedings to continue would amount to abuse of the process of law. The allegations are also that the accused-petitioner had been following the respondent-complainant while coming or going to college for the last so many days and on the day of occurrence he even mis-behaved also with her. Hence not so serious and even personal to her.
::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 02:54:58 :::HCHP 109. In view of what has said hereinabove, this petition is allowed. Consequently, FIR No. 0124/2018 Annexure P-1 and .
consequential criminal proceedings registered against the accused-petitioner in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohru,District Shimla in case No. 9-02 of 2019, titled State of H.P. Versus Saurav Sharma are quashed and set aside.
10. The petition is accordingly disposed of.
r to
(Dharam Chand Chaudhary),
Judge.
August 30, 2019,
( vs)
::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 02:54:58 :::HCHP