Himachal Pradesh High Court
Sar Chand And Others vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Others on 24 September, 2019
Author: Vivek Singh Thakur
Bench: Vivek Singh Thakur
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,
SHIMLA
Cr.MMO No. 484 of 2019
.
Date of decision: 24.9.2019
Sar Chand and others. ...Petitioners.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & others. ...Respondents
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the Petitioners: Mr.Virender Singh Rathore, Advocate.
Petitioners in person.
For the Respondents: Mr.S.C. Sharma and Mr.Desh Raj Thakur,
r Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr.R.P.
Singh,Mr.Kamal Kant and Mr.Kamal Kishore
Sharma, Deputy Advocate Generals for
respondent No. 1.
Mr.Sandeep Sharma, Advocate, for
respondents No. 2 to 4.
Respondents No. 2 to 4 present in person.
Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge (oral)
The instant petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (herein after referred to as 'Cr.PC') has been filed by petitioners, on the basis of compromise arrived at between parties, for quashing of FIR No. 39 of 2012, dated 18.6.2012, under Sections 147, 149, 447 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code (herein after referred to as Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes ::: Downloaded on - 26/09/2019 20:30:52 :::HCHP 2 Cr. MMO No. 484 of 2019 'IPC') registered at Police Station Chirgaon, District Shimla, H.P., and criminal proceedings initiated in pursuance thereto.
2. Petitioners Sar Chand, Parma Nand, Prithi Pal, Brij Lal, .
Pardeep Kumar and Jitender Singh and respondents No. 2 to 4 Binta Devi, Darshan @ Darshani Devi and Ravita are present in person and are duly identified by their respective counsels. Their statements on oath have also been recorded.
3. Petitioners in their statements have deposed that on 18.6.2012, one Dharam Singh of village Soundari had expired. His near and dear and villagers had intended to cremate his dead body in the field owned and possessed by complainant party and at that time area of cremation ground where villagers had been cremating dead bodies was not available as it was utilized for construction of road and due to misunderstanding the villagers who were carrying the dead body of Dharam Singh, were under impression that complainant party had permitted to cremate the dead body in their field, whereas it was not so as respondents No. 2 to 4 had objected the cremation of dead body in their field, which had resulted into altercation and quarrel between the parties and lodging of FIR. They have also stated that, later on complainant party had also filed a civil suit against residents of village Soundari and now civil matter stands compromised and has been closed as compromised and parties have also agreed to compromise the present matter in order to maintain peace, harmony and cordial relations ::: Downloaded on - 26/09/2019 20:30:52 :::HCHP 3 Cr. MMO No. 484 of 2019 with each other and compromise has also been reduced into writing, copy whereof has been annexed with the petition as Annexure P-2, which has been duly signed by them as well as respondents No. 2 to 4 in presence .
of witness. Petitioners have further stated that they have decided not to quarrel again and now the villagers have also constructed a shed for cremating dead bodies at another place on Government land and that they have signed the compromise and deposed in the Court out of their free will, consent and without any external pressure, coercion or threat of any kind.
4. Respondents/complainants No. 2 and 3 and respondent No. 4 Ravita, in their statements recorded on oath have endorsed the compromise to be true and correct and having signed the compromise Annexure P-2 and deposed in the Court out of their free will, consent and without any pressure, coercion or threat or any kind.
5. It is contended on behalf of respondent No. 1-State that petitioners/accused 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.
6. It is apt to record herein that a three Judges Bench of the Apex Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Others 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 ::: Downloaded on - 26/09/2019 20:30:52 :::HCHP 4 Cr. MMO No. 484 of 2019 including Section 320 Cr.P.C., 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 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.P.C. 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.
7. The Apex Court in case Narinder Singh and Ors. 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) 5 SCC 688 ::: Downloaded on - 26/09/2019 20:30:52 :::HCHP 5 Cr. MMO No. 484 of 2019 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.
8. No doubt Sections 147 and 149 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 and Laxmi Narayan's cases supra, power of High Court under Section 482 Cr.PC is not inhibited by the provisions of Section 320 Cr.P.C. and FIR as well as criminal proceedings can be quashed by exercising inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.PC, if it is 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.
9. In present case, complainants/respondents No. 2 and 3 in their statements, as discussed supra, have also been recorded in this Court, wherein they have expressed their desire to close the proceedings against petitioners.
10. 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 ::: Downloaded on - 26/09/2019 20:30:52 :::HCHP 6 Cr. MMO No. 484 of 2019 effective and meaningful litigation, a commonsense approach, based on ground realities and bereft of the technicalities of law, should be applied.
11. Offences in question, for material on record, do not fall in the .
category of offences termed to be prohibited, in the pronouncements of Apex Court, to be compounded exercising power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. In view of statements of respondents No. 2 and 3- complainants, recorded on oath in this Court, probability of conviction is too remote.
12. Keeping in view the ratio of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and considering facts and evidence of the case in its entirety, present petition is allowed and matter is permitted to be compounded.
Consequently, FIR No. 39 of 2012, dated 18.6.2012, registered at Police Station, Chirgaon, District Shimla, H.P. is quashed. Consequent to quashing of FIR No. 39 of 2012, criminal proceedings in case No. RBT-
19-2 of 19/13 titled as State of H.P. Vs. Sar Chand and others pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Rohru, also stand quashed.
13. Petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so also pending applications, if any.
Copy Dasti.
(Vivek Singh Thakur), th 24 September, 2019 Judge.
(Keshav) ::: Downloaded on - 26/09/2019 20:30:52 :::HCHP