Himachal Pradesh High Court
Meera Devi vs State Of H.P And Another on 16 December, 2022
Author: Virender Singh
Bench: Virender Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
Cr.MMO No. 893 of 2022
Decided on: 16th December, 2022
.
Meera Devi .......Petitioner.
Versus
State of H.P and another ...Respondents
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the petitioner: Ms. Heena Chauhan, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Shiv Pal Manhans, Addl. A.G
r with Mr. Bhupinder Thakur, Dy.
A.G for respondent No.1.
Mr. H.R. Bhardwaj, Advocate for
respondent No.2.
Virender Singh, Judge (Oral)
Petitioner Meera Devi has filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing of FIR No. 156 of 2019 dated 13.07.2019 under Sections 427, 452, 504 and 506 IPC registered at Police Station, Shimla West, District Shimla, H.P. as well as the resultant proceedings thereto.
2. The petition has been filed on the ground that on 12.07.2019, FIR in question has been registered against the petitioner, at the instance of respondent No.2. After the proceedings, final report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C for the 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2022 20:32:30 :::CIS 2commission of offences punishable under Section 427, 451, 504 and 506 IPC has been filed against the petitioner and the .
proceedings are stated to be pending before the learned JMFC, Court No.6, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P (hereinafter referred to as the 'learned trial Court'). Now, the case has been stated to be fixed for 08.12.2022.
3. It is further case of the petitioner that, with the intervention of the respectables of the society, efforts were made to settle the dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.2. The said efforts resulted into the compromise between the parties i.e. petitioner and respondent No.2. The copy of the compromise has been annexed with the petition as Annexure P-3.
4. The registration of the FIR against the petitioner is also stated to be the result of misunderstanding between the parties and the said misunderstanding has now been sorted out between the parties. The petitioner and respondent No.2 are known to each other since their childhood and they are from the same area. The compromise has been effected between the parties in order to maintain their cordial relations.
::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2022 20:32:30 :::CIS 35. On all these submissions, a prayer has been made to allow the petition by quashing the FIR in question as well as the .
proceedings resultant thereto. Along-with the petition, the original compromise deed has also been annexed.
6. On notice, the State has contested the petition by reiterating the factual position about the registration of the FIR and the manner, in which, the investigation has been conducted. Apart from this, it is the stand of the State that the offences committed by the petitioner have far reaching effect on the society, as such, a prayer has been made to dismiss the petition.
7. Today, both, the petitioner as well as respondent No.2 has put in appearance. Complainant/respondent No.2 Naval Kishore, on oath, deposed that the FIR in question was lodged due to misunderstanding with the petitioner and now, in order to maintain cordial relations, the compromise has been effected between the petitioner and respondent No.2. On the basis of said fact, a prayer has been made to allow the petition by quashing the FIR in question. Similar statement has also been made by the petitioner.
::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2022 20:32:30 :::CIS 48. Keeping in view the nature of the offences, as alleged in the FIR in question, as well as, in the report under Section .
173(2) Cr.P.C., this Court is of the view that the intention of the parties i.e. petitioner and respondent No.2, duly recorded in the compromise, Ext. P-3 should be given due honour, as petitioner and respondent No.2 have entered into this compromise, in order to maintain their cordial relations. Both are from same area. Since respondent No.2 has categorically stated that the FIR in question was got registered by him, due to some misunderstanding with the petitioner, as such, chances of conviction of the petitioner are not so bright and no useful purpose would be served by keeping the proceedings alive before the learned trial Court.
9. Therefore, this Court deems it fit to consider the present petition in the light of the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Narinder Singh and others versus State of Punjab and another, (2014) 6 Supreme Court Cases 466, whereby 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.
::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2022 20:32:30 :::CIS 510. 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 Cr.P.C is to be distinguished from the power, which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C.
11. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., 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, in view of the guiding principles, as decided by Hon'ble Apex Court in Narinder Singh's case supra. Relevant para 29 of the judgment is reproduced as under:-
29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up 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:
29.1Power 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.
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:
::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2022 20:32:30 :::CIS 6(i) ends of justice, or
(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court.
.
While exercising the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the 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 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 remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to 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, 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 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 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.
::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2022 20:32:30 :::CIS 729.7. 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 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, 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 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".
12. Judging the facts and circumstances of the present case, in the light of the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court is also of the view that the present case does not fall in any of the exception, which has been carved out by Hon'ble Apex Court in Narinder Singh's case supra, in para 29.3 of the judgment.
13. The compromise seems to have been effected between the parties. Petitioner and respondent No. 2, in unequivocal terms, have deposed that a compromise has been effected between the parties just to save their future cordial relations and to maintain harmony in the society.
::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2022 20:32:30 :::CIS 814. From the above facts, this Court is satisfied that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the proceedings alive .
before the learned trial Court as the chances of deposing against the petitioner by respondent No.2 are very bleak.
Moreover, the compromise seems to be for maintaining the cordial relations between the parties.
15. The acceptance of this petition would also save the precious judicial time, which could be devoted by the learned trial Court, for the decision of some other serious matters.
16. Taking into consideration the compromise entered into between the complainant/respondent No. 2 and accused/petitioner, as also the statements to this effect, made by the parties to the compromise, in this Court, the present petition is allowed and FIR No. 156 of 2019 dated 13.07.2019 under Sections 427, 452, 504 and 506 IPC registered at Police Station, Shimla West, District Shimla, H.P., as well as resultant criminal proceedings, pending before the learned trial Court are quashed.
17. The compromise deed Ex. P-3 as well as statements of the parties to the compromise, made in the Court shall form ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2022 20:32:30 :::CIS 9 part of the judgment. Miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
.
December 16, 2022 ( Virender Singh )
(naveen) Judge
r to
::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2022 20:32:30 :::CIS