Himachal Pradesh High Court
Yash Pal & Others vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Another on 5 December, 2022
Author: Vivek Singh Thakur
Bench: Vivek Singh Thakur
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
SHIMLA
Cr.MMO No. 749 of 2022
Date of Decision: December 5, 2022
.
Yash Pal & others ...Petitioners.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & another ..Respondents.
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the Petitioners: Mr.Vivek Negi, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Raju Ram Rahi, Deputy Advocate
r General, for respondent No.1.
Mr.Suneet Goel, Advocate, for respondent
No.2.
Vivek Singh Thakur, J (oral)
The instant petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.PC') has been filed by the petitioners, on the basis of compromise arrived at between them and respondent No.2-complainant-Geeta Ram, for quashing of FIR No.73 of 2016, dated 13.11.2016, registered in Police Station Chirgaon, District Shimla, H.P., under Sections 147, 149, 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') and consequent proceedings arising thereto pending before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohru, District Shimla, H.P., in Case No.6-2/2017, titled as State vs. Dinesh Kumar.
2. Complainant-respondent No.2-Geeta Ram and petitioner Nos. 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 21, 22, 23 and 27- Yash Pal, Ishwar Singh, Shish Pal, Dinesh Kumar, Baldev Singh, 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2022 10:01:24 :::CIS 2Ramesh Kumar, Vinta Devi @ Banta Devi, Baby, Vijay Kumar, Sharmila Devi, Roma Devi, Kanta Devi and Lajwanti Devi @ Rajwanti, are present in person, who have been duly identified .
by their respective learned counsel and their statements have also been recorded separately. Other petitioners are not accused in report submitted by the police.
3. In his statement, respondent No.2-complainant-
Geeta Ram has stated that the incident in question had taken place on account of misunderstanding with respect to path crossing from his courtyard as he constructed a toilet/bathroom for use of his family and petitioners formed an opinion that it will cause hindrance in the path and that resulted into incident in question in which both sides received injuries. He has further stated that now there is sufficient path left after construction of toilet/bathroom and now misunderstanding stands clarified and there is no hindrance to the path. He has further stated that all of them are residents of same Village belonging to one and the same clan having common ancestor, and are living in peaceful, harmonious and cordial relationship. Further that, they are also in talking and visiting terms with each other. Further that, to continue good relations, they have decided to forget the past and to have peaceful future and, therefore, they have decided to close the criminal cases lodged against each other, by withdrawing the complaints for quashing the FIRs and pending cases. He has further stated that Baby, who is accused in present case, has also lodged a cross FIR No.74 of 2016, dated ::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2022 10:01:24 :::CIS 3 13.11.2016, in which he alongwith others is an accused. With aforesaid deposition, he has prayed for permission to withdraw the complaint for quashing of FIR and criminal proceedings .
arising thereto, pending before the trial Court and he has undertaken not to repeat such incident in future.
4. Petitioners, present in person, in their joint statement have endorsed the statement of complainant-respondent No.2 Geeta Ram and have undertaken not to repeat such incident in future.
5. Complainant-respondent No.2 and appearing petitioners have also stated that they have deposed in this Court, out of their free will, consent and without any external pressure, coercion or threat of any kind.
6. It is contended on behalf of respondent No.1-State that accused-petitioners 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.P.C.
7. 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.PC, 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 ::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2022 10:01:24 :::CIS 4 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 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.PC 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.
8. The Apex Court in Parbatbhai Aahir alias Parbhathbhai Bhimsinghbhai Karmur and others vs. State of Gujarat and another, (2017) 9 SCC 641, summarizing the broad principles regarding inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has recognized that these powers are not inhibited by provisions of Section 320 Cr.P.C.
9. The Apex Court in case Narinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and others reported in (2014)6 SCC 466 and also in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan and others (2019) ::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2022 10:01:24 :::CIS 5 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.
10. No doubt Section 147 of 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, Parbatbhai Aahir'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 CrPC and FIR as well as criminal proceedings can be quashed by exercising inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.PC, if 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.
11. 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.
12. Now, the matter has been amicably settled between the private parties on the basis of compromise arrived at between them. As such, I am of the considered view that no ::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2022 10:01:24 :::CIS 6 fruitful purpose shall be served to continue the proceedings against petitioners.
13. Considering facts and circumstances of the case in .
entirety, I am of the opinion that present petition deserves to be allowed for ends of justice and the same is allowed accordingly and FIR No.73 of 2016, dated 13.11.2016, registered in Police Station Chirgaon, District Shimla, H.P., is quashed. Consequent to quashing of FIR, criminal proceedings initiated against petitioners-accused persons in pursuance thereto, pending before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohru, District Shimla, H.P., in Case No.6-2/2017, titled as State vs. Dinesh Kumar, are also quashed.
14. Petition stands disposed of in above terms.
15. Parties are permitted to produce/use copy of this order, downloaded from the web-page of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, before the trial Court/authorities concerned, and the said Court/authorities shall not insist for production of a certified copy but if required, may verify it from Website of the High Court.
(Vivek Singh Thakur), Judge.
December 5, 2022 (Purohit) ::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2022 10:01:24 :::CIS