Himachal Pradesh High Court
Ram Lal vs Of on 27 December, 2018
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,
SHIMLA
.
Cr.MMO No.573 of 2018
Date of decision : 27.12.2018
Ram Lal
... Petitioner.
Versus
of
State of Himachal Pradesh
...Respondent
Coram:
rt
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 No
For the Petitioner : Mr. G.R. Palsra, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Mr. S.C. Sharma, Mr. Dinesh Thakur and
Mr. Sanjeev Sood, Addl. A.G. with Mr. Amit
Kumar Dhumal, Dy. A.G. for the respondent/
State.
Sandeep Sharma, Judge (Oral)
By way of instant petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, prayer has been made on behalf of petitioner- complainant (hereinafter, 'complainant') as well as accused persons namely Deepak Kumar, son of Shri Chhater Singh, R/o VPO Gwali Khera, Tehsil and District Bagpath, (U.P.), Deepak, son of Shri Deep Chand, R/o Village Chhohlda, P.O. Tatihri, Tehsil and District Bagpath, 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 20:01:19 :::HCHP...2...
(U.P.), Yogesh Kumar, S/o Shri Harish Chand, R/o Village .
Chhohlda, P.O. Tatihri, Tehsil and District Bagpath, (U.P.), Dharminder, S/o Shri Lalit Mohan, R/o 3/30 Block Nand Nagri Delhi and Harjeet Singh, son of Shri Avtar Singh, R/o C290 Janakpuri, P.S. and Tehsil Sahibabad, District Gajiyabad (U.P.) of for quashing of FIR No. 91 of 2016 dated 21.6.2016 under Sections 420, 464, 465, 468, 471, 201 and 12-B of the Indian rt Penal Code, registered at Police Station, Karsog, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh and consequential proceedings pending in the competent Court of law, on the ground that after lodging of FIR, complainant has resolved to settle his disputes with the accused persons named above amicably vide compromise deed (Annexure P-3).
2. The averments contained in the petition suggests that FIR No.91 of 2016 was registered at Police Station, Karsog, District Mandi, H.P. against the above mentioned accused persons at the behest of complainant who alleged that the accused persons had taken a sum of Rs.1,04,900/-
from him on the pretext that they would erect tower on the land of the complainant and he will get monthly rent from ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 20:01:19 :::HCHP ...3...
there, but the accused persons neither erected any tower on .
the land of the complainant nor they refunded the money and as such he was compelled to lodge the FIR detailed hereinabove against the accused persons named above.
3. However, during the pendency of the proceedings of before learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Karsog, District Mandi, H.P., the complainant entered into a compromise with rt the accused persons vide Compromise Deed (Annexure P-3), whereby he resolved to amicably settle his disputes with the accused persons with the intervention of elder members of the society.
4. Careful perused of the Compromise Deed (Annexure P-3) placed on record, clearly suggests that entire amount of Rs.1,04,900/- stands repaid to the complainant and as such, he agreed to withdraw the case registered by him against the accused persons at Police Station, Karsog, District Kangra, H.P.
5. In the aforesaid background, complainant himself has filed this petition seeking quashment of FIR mentioned hereinabove lodged at his behest. The complainant who has ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 20:01:19 :::HCHP ...4...
come present, stated on oath before this Court that he, of his .
own volition and without any external pressure, has entered into Compromise Deed (Annexure P-3), whereby he has received entire sum of Rs.1,04,900/- allegedly taken by the accused persons from him on the pretext of erecting tower on of his land and he does not wish to continue with the proceedings initiated pursuant to FIR mentioned above at his behest.
rt He stated on oath before this Court that he shall have no objection in case no action, if any, is taken against the accused persons pursuant to the FIR lodged at his behest.
His statement made on oath before this Court is taken on record.
6. Mr. Dinesh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, after having gone through the record and perused the statement made on oath by the complainant, fairly stated that no fruitful purpose shall be served in case proceedings initiated pursuant to the FIR lodged by the complainant against the accused persons, is allowed to continue and as such prayer made by way of present petition may be accepted.
::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 20:01:19 :::HCHP...5...
7. Having heard learned counsel representing the .
parties and perused the Compromise Deed placed on record, coupled with the statement of the complainant made before this Court, this Court sees no impediment in accepting the prayer made in the instant petition for quashing of FIR lodged of at the behest of the complainant.
8. Since the instant petition has been filed under rt Section 482 Cr.P.C, this Court deems it fit to consider the same in light of the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Narinder Singh and others versus State of Punjab and another (2014)6 SCC 466, whereby the Hon'ble Apex Court has formulated guidelines for accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings. Perusal of judgment referred to above clearly depicts that in para 29.1, Hon'ble Apex Court has returned the findings that power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 20:01:19 :::HCHP ...6...
Court has inherent power to quash criminal proceedings even .
in those cases which are not compoundable and where the parties have settled the matter between themselves, however, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with great caution. Para Nos. 29 to 29.7 of the judgment are of reproduced as under:-
"29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up rt and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising 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 the criminal proceedings:
29.1 Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution.::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 20:01:19 :::HCHP
...7...
29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal .
proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:
(i) ends of justice, or
(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court.
of While exercising the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the rt aforesaid two objectives.
29.3. Such a power is not be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious 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. Similarly, for offences alleged to have been committed under special statute like the 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.
29.4. On the other, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 20:01:19 :::HCHP ...8...
transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties .
have resolved their entire disputes among themselves.
29.5. While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is of remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to rt him by not quashing the criminal cases.
29.6. Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore is to be generally treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone. 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 collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to proving 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, ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 20:01:19 :::HCHP ...9...
nature of weapons used etc. Medical report in respect of injuries suffered by the victim can generally be the .
guiding factor. On the basis of this prima facie analysis, the High Court can examine as to whether there is a strong possibility of conviction or the chances of conviction are remote and bleak. In the former case it can refuse to accept the settlement and of quash the criminal proceedings whereas in the later case it would be permissible for the High Court to accept the plea compounding the offence based on rt complete settlement between the parties. At this stage, the Court can also be swayed by the fact that the settlement between the parties is going to result in harmony between them which may improve their future relationship.
29.7. While deciding whether to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code or not, timings of settlement play a crucial role. Those cases where the settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged commission of offence and the matter is still under investigation, the High Court may be liberal in accepting the settlement to quash the criminal proceedings/investigation. It is because of the reason that at this stage the investigation is still on and even the charge sheet has not been filed. Likewise, those cases where the charge is framed but the evidence is ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 20:01:19 :::HCHP ...10...
yet to start or the evidence is still at infancy stage, the High Court can show benevolence in exercising its .
powers favourably, but after prima facie assessment of the circumstances/material mentioned above. On the other hand, where the prosecution evidence is almost complete or after the conclusion of the evidence the matter is at the stage of argument, of normally the High Court should refrain from exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code, as in such cases the trial court would be in a position to decide rt the case finally on merits and to come a conclusion as to whether the offence under Section 307 IPC is committed or not. Similarly, in those cases where the conviction is already recorded by the trial court and the matter is at the appellate stage before the High Court, mere compromise between the parties would not be a ground to accept the same resulting in acquittal of the offender who has already been convicted by the trial court. Here charge is proved under Section 307 IPC and conviction is already recorded of a heinous crime and, therefore, there is no question of sparing a convict found guilty of such a crime".
9. Careful perusal of para 29.3 of the judgment suggests that such a power is not to be exercised in the ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 20:01:19 :::HCHP ...11...
cases which involve heinous and serious 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. Apart from this, offences committed under special statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the of offences committed by Public Servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of rt compromise between the victim and the offender. On the other hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes may be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves.
10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case Gian Singh v.
State of Punjab and anr. (2012) 10 SCC 303 has held that power of the High Court in quashing of the criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent power is distinct and different from the power of a Criminal ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 20:01:19 :::HCHP ...12...
Court for compounding offences under Section 320 Cr.PC.
.
Even in the judgment passed in Narinder Singh's case, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that while exercising inherent power of quashment under Section 482 Cr.PC the Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the of crime and its social impact and it cautioned the Courts not to exercise the power for quashing proceedings in heinous rt and serious offences of mental depravity, murder, rape, dacoity etc. However subsequently, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Dimpey Gujral and Ors. vs. Union Territory through Administrator, UT, Chandigarh and Ors. (2013( 11 SCC 497 has also held as under:-
"7. In certain decisions of this Court in view of the settlement arrived at by the parties, this Court quashed the FIRs though some of the offences were non- compoundable. A two Judges' Bench of this court doubted the correctness of those decisions. Learned Judges felt that in those decisions, this court had permitted compounding of non-compoundable offences. The said issue was, therefore, referred to a larger bench.::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 20:01:19 :::HCHP
...13...
The larger Bench in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 considered the relevant provisions of the .
Code and the judgments of this court and concluded as under: (SCC pp. 342-43, para 61)
61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or of complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 rt of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 20:01:19 :::HCHP ...14...
have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation .
to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having of overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the rt offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 20:01:19 :::HCHP ...15...
the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise .
between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."
of (emphasis supplied)
8. In the light of the above observations of this court in Gian Singh, we feel that this is a case where the rt continuation of criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law because the alleged offences are not heinous offences showing extreme depravity nor are they against the society. They are offences of a personal nature and burying them would bring about peace and amity between the two sides. In the circumstances of the case, FIR No. 163 dated 26.10.2006 registered under Section 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 452 and 506 of the IPC at Police Station Sector 3, Chandigarh and all consequential proceedings arising there from including the final report presented under Section 173 of the Code and charges framed by the trial Court are hereby quashed."
11. Recently the Hon'ble Apex Court in its latest judgment dated 4th October, 2017, titled as Parbatbhai ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 20:01:19 :::HCHP ...16...
Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others .
versus State of Gujarat and Another, passed in Criminal Appeal No.1723 of 2017 arising out of SLP(Crl) No.9549 of 2016, reiterated the principles/ parameters laid down in Narinder Singh's case supra for accepting the settlement of and quashing the proceedings. It would be profitable to reproduce para No. 13 to 15 of the judgment herein:
rt "13. The same principle was followed in Central Bureau of Investigation v. Maninder Singh (2016)1 SCC 389 by a bench of two learned Judges of this Court. In that case, the High Court had, in the exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 quashed proceedings under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 read with Section 120-B of the Penal Code. While allowing the appeal filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation Mr Justice Dipak Misra (as the learned Chief Justice then was) observed that the case involved allegations of forgery of documents to embezzle the funds of the bank. In such a situation, the fact that the dispute had been settled with the bank would not justify a recourse to thepower under Section 482:
"...In economic offences Court must not only keep in view that money has been paid to the bank which has been defrauded but also the society at large. It is not a case of simple assault or a theft of a trivial amount; but ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 20:01:19 :::HCHP ...17...
the offence with which we are concerned is well planned and was committed with a deliberate design with an eye .
of personal profit regardless of consequence to the society at large. To quash the proceeding merely on the ground that the accused has settled the amount with the bank would be a misplaced sympathy. If the prosecution against the economic offenders are not of allowed to continue, the entire community is aggrieved."
rt
14. In a subsequent decision in State of Tamil Nadu v R Vasanthi Stanley (2016) 1 SCC 376, the court rejected the submission that the first respondent was a woman "who was following the command of her husband" and had signed certain documents without being aware of the nature of the fraud which was being perpetrated on the bank. Rejecting the submission, this Court held that:
"... Lack of awareness, knowledge or intent is neither to be considered nor accepted in economic offences. The submission assiduously presented on gender leaves us unimpressed. An offence under the criminal law is an offence and it does not depend upon the gender of an accused. True it is, there are certain provisions in Code of Criminal Procedure relating to exercise of jurisdiction Under Section 437, etc. therein but that altogether pertains to a different sphere. A person committing a ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 20:01:19 :::HCHP ...18...
murder or getting involved in a financial scam or forgery of documents, cannot claim discharge or acquittal on .
the ground of her gender as that is neither constitutionally nor statutorily a valid argument. The offence is gender neutral in this case. We say no more on this score..."
of "...A grave criminal offence or serious economic offence or for that matter the offence that has the potentiality to create a dent in the financial health of the rt institutions, is not to be quashed on the ground that there is delay in trial or the principle that when the matter has been settled it should be quashed to avoid the load on the system..."
15. The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject may be summarized in the following propositions:
(i) 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 recognizes and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court;
(ii) 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 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 20:01:19 :::HCHP ...19...
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 quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-
of compoundable.
(iii) In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its rt jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power;
(iv) 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;
(v) 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;
vi) In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 20:01:19 :::HCHP ...20...
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 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 of 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 rt offences;
(vii) As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming 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;
(viii) 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;
(ix) 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 - 29/12/2018 20:01:19 :::HCHP ...21...
(x) There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions (viii) and (ix) 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 of economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance."
rt
12. In the case at hand also, the offence alleged against the accused persons does not involve offences of mental depravity or of heinous nature like rape, dacoity or murder and as such, with a view to maintain harmony and peace in society, this Court deems it appropriate to quash the FIR as well as consequential proceedings thereto, especially keeping in view the fact that the complainant has compromised the matter with the accused persons, in which case, the possibility of conviction is remote and no fruitful purpose would be served in continuing with the criminal proceedings.
::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 20:01:19 :::HCHP...22...
13. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussions .
as well as law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court (supra), FIR No. 91 of 2016 dated 21.6.2016 under Sections 420, 464, 465, 468, 471, 201 and 12-B of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station, Karsog, District Mandi, Himachal of Pradesh and consequential proceedings, if any, are quashed and set aside.
rt The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, alongwith all pending applications.
(Sandeep Sharma), Judge.
December 27, 2018 (KS) ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 20:01:19 :::HCHP