Himachal Pradesh High Court
Kapil Sharma & Others vs State Of H.P on 21 June, 2017
Author: Sureshwar Thakur
Bench: Sureshwar Thakur
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT
SHIMLA
Cr. MMO No. 151 of 2017
Decided on :21.6.2017
.
Kapil Sharma & others
...Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P.
...Respondents
___________________________________________
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sureshwar Thakur, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? yes
________________________________________________
For the petitioner : Mr. Naveen K. Bhardwaj,
Advocate.
For the respondent : Mr. Vivek Singh Attri,
Additional Advocate General.
Sureshwar Thakur, Judge (oral)
This petition stands instituted at the instance of the petitioner-accused under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.62 of 2013 of 1.8.2013, registered at Police Station, Banjar, District Kullu, wherein the petitioner No. 1 herein is alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 of Indian Penal Code and 187 of Motor Vehicles Act. Besides a prayer has been made therein that consequential criminal proceedings launched against the petitioner No. 1/accused, proceedings whereof are pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, (Lahaul & Spiti), Kullu being also rendered to be ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2017 23:58:24 :::HCHP 2 quashed and set aside.
2. During the pendency of the petition before this Court, the petitioners respectively recorded their statements .
on oath, statements whereof stand duly reduced into writing and signatured by them, wherein each in tandem with the compromise entered inter se them "made" disclosures therein qua an amicable settlement occurring qua the relevant dispute with the petitioner No. 1/accused herein.
They have also proceeded to therein unveil qua theirs holding no objection in case the instant petition preferred by the petitioners before this Court for quashing of FIR No. 62 of 2013 of 1.8.2013, registered at Police Station, Banjar, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, is accepted. Given the statements of petitioners No. 2 to 4, this Court hence accepts the instant petition. Even though some of the offences constituted in the FIR are non-compoundable, however, in the light of the verdict of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in Narinder Singh and others versus State of Punjab and another, (2014) 6 SCC 466, relevant paragraph 11 whereof stands extracted hereinafter, whereupon this Court hold leverage to quash an FIR besides consequential proceedings launched in pursuance thereof even when some of the offences recorded therein are non compoundable, especially for preventing abuse of process of Court or for securing the ends of justice, besides when in 2 ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2017 23:58:24 :::HCHP 3 the face of a settlement arrived at inter se the accused and respondent No. 2/complainant qua the relevant offence(s), render bleak the chances of the accused suffering .
conviction. Paragraph No.11 of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:
"11. As to under what circumstances the criminal proceedings in a non compoundable case be quashed when there is a settlement between the parties, the Court provided the following guidelines: (Gian Singh v.
State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303):-
"58 Where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that the dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled although the offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put on an end peace is resorted; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. No doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful effect on the public and consist in wrongdoing that seriously endangers and threats the will being of the society and it is not safe to leave the crime-doer only because he and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the victim has been paid compensation, yet certain crimes have been made compoundable in law, with or without the permission of the Court. In respect of serious offences like murder, rape, decoity etc., or other offences of mental depravity under IPC or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by the public servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between the 3 ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2017 23:58:24 :::HCHP 4 offender and the victim can have no legal sanction at all. However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or .
such like transactions of the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc., or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to the victim and the offender and the victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or FIR if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated. The above list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Each case will depend on its own facts and no hard and fast category can be prescribed."
3. Consequently, with a settlement standing arrived at inter se the parties herein, constrains this Court to hence conclude that even if some of the offences constituted in the FIR are non compoundable yet for securing the ends of justice besides for precluding the petitioners/accused being subjected to the ordeal of unnecessary harassment and humiliation of facing trial, significantly when the petitioners in their respective statements recorded on oath, duly reduced into writing and signatured by them, communicate therein qua theirs not intending to prosecute the petitioner 4 ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2017 23:58:24 :::HCHP 5 No.1/accused, whereupon the compromise/settlement arrived at inter se the parties, warrants imputation of reverence thereon by this Court. Moreover, what further .
prods this Court to revere the settlement arrived at inter se the parties, is comprised in the fact "of with the" victims of the offence(s) being uninterested in prosecuting the petitioner No. 1/accused, resultantly when obviously the chances of the petitioner No. 1/accused suffering conviction are rendered bleak/remote, factum whereof qua the remoteness and bleakness of the petitioner No. 1/accused suffering conviction stands expostulated in the relevant paragraph 11 of the verdict of the Hon'ble Apex Court to be a relevant and guiding parameter for accepting the settlement arrived at inter se the aprties, even when some of the offences are non-compoundable, as in this case.
Resultantly, when the said parameter expostulated in the relevant paragraph 11 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, which stands extracted hereinabove, has for the reasons aforesaid hence begotten satiation, satiation thereof prods this Court to accept the settlement arrived at inter se the parties.
4. Consequently, the petition is allowed and FIR No. 62 of 2013 of 1.8.2013, wherein the petitioner No. 1/accused herein are alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 of the Indian Penal 5 ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2017 23:58:24 :::HCHP 6 Code and under Section 187 of the Motor Vehicle Act is quashed and set aside. Also, further proceedings in criminal case No. 318-1/2013, titled as State Vs. Kapil Sharma, .
arising out of FIR No. 62 of 2013, dated 8.1.2013, registered at Police Station, Banjar, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh are also quashed. All the pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of.
(Sureshwar Thakur) Judge June 22, 2017 Kalpana 6 ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2017 23:58:24 :::HCHP