Himachal Pradesh High Court
Anu vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Others on 8 August, 2024
Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:6583 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MMO No.654 of 2024 Reserved on: 29.07.2024 .
Date of Decision: 08.8.2024.
Anu ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & others ..Respondents
Coram
Hon'ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1.
For the Petitioners
r : Mr. G.R. Palsra, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Mr Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate
Advocate General for respondent
No.1/State.
: Mr. Lokesh Thakur, Advocate, for
respondent No.2.
: Respondent No.3 is present in person.
: Mr. Jia Lal, Advocate, for respondent
No.4.
Rakesh Kainthla, Judge
The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing of F.I.R No. 15 of 2023 dated 12.04.2023, for the commission of offences punishable under Section 376(2) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2024 20:32:17 :::CIS 2Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:6583 ) Act,2012 (POCSO Act) registered at Women Police Station Bhivli, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, H.P. and consequent proceedings arising out of .
the F.I.R. It has been asserted that the petitioner and victim have solemnized marriage. One daughter was born to them. The victim is residing in the house of the petitioner. Her statement was recorded in the Court on 18.01.2024, in which she deposed that she had married the petitioner and was residing in her matrimonial home. Therefore,
2.
r to it has been prayed that the present petition be allowed and the F.I.R.
be quashed based on the compromise.
The petition is opposed by the State by filing a reply making preliminary submission regarding lack of maintainability. It was asserted that the victim was found less than 15 years old at the time of the incident. The crime committed by the petitioner is heinous and he cannot escape from the consequences of the offence committed by him. The offence is non-compoundable and affects not only the child victim but the society as a whole. The DNA of the child was matched with the petitioner. The petitioner knew that the victim was a minor and had committed sexual assault upon her. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed.
3. I have heard Mr G.R. Palsra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for ::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2024 20:32:17 :::CIS 3 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:6583 ) respondent No.1/State, Mr Lokesh Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.2, and Mr. Jia Lal, learned counsel for respondent No.4.
.
4. Mr. G.R. Palsra, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the parties have solemnized the marriage with each other. Respondent No.4/victim is residing in the house of the petitioner and has given birth to his child, therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the F.I.R. and consequential proceedings arising out of the F.I.R. be quashed.
5. Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No.1/State submitted that there is no proof of the marriage between the parties and as per the statement made by the victim before the learned Trial Court, the fact of the marriage was not disclosed to any of them. In the absence of any proof of marriage, the F.I.R. cannot be quashed. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.
6. Mr Lokesh Thakur, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and Mr. Jia Lal, learned counsel for respondent No.4 adopted the submissions advanced by Mr. G.R. Palsra, learned counsel for the petitioner.
7. I have given considerable thought to the submission made at the bar and have gone through the record carefully.
::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2024 20:32:17 :::CIS 4Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:6583 ) 8 It was laid down by this Court in Ranjeet Kumar vs State of H.P. & others, Cr.MMO No. 648 of 2023 decided on 8.12.2023 that F.I.R.
.
can be quashed where the parties are married to each other. The statement of the child victim recorded by the learned Trial Court (Annexure P-1) reads that she and the petitioner wanted to get married to each other. She met the petitioner at Prasher. The petitioner took her to a nearby Jungle and had sexual relations with r to her with her consent. She did not disclose her relationship with the petitioner to her parents or anybody else at home.
petitioner got married in a temple at Prasher and did not reveal the She and the marriage to any person. She and the petitioner used to visit the house of each other.
9. The statement of the child victim clearly shows that the marriage stated to have been solemnized with the petitioner was only known to the victim and the petitioner. She had not disclosed the factum of the marriage to any person including her parents. No certificate of the marriage was placed on record. Even the birth certificate of the child does not mention the name of the father or his Aadhar number. Thus, it is difficult to conclude at this stage that parties have solemnized the marriage with each other and the present case does not fall within the parameters laid down by this Court in ::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2024 20:32:17 :::CIS 5 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:6583 ) Ranjeet Kumar's case (supra). The victim was minor and incapable of consenting; hence, the sexual intercourse with her even if with her .
consent will amount to statutory rape.
10. It was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303: 2012 SCC OnLine SC 769 that the power to quash the proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. based on the compromise is different from the power of compounding under Section 320 of CrPC. It was observed:
"57. Quashing of offence or criminal proceedings on the ground of settlement between an offender and victim is not the same thing as compounding of offence. They are different and not interchangeable. Strictly speaking, the power of compounding offences given to a court under Section 320 is materially different from the quashing of criminal proceedings by the High Court in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. In compounding of offences, the power of a criminal court is circumscribed by the provisions contained in Section 320 and the court is guided solely and squarely thereby while, on the other hand, the formation of opinion by the High Court for quashing a criminal offence or criminal proceeding or criminal complaint is guided by the material on record as to whether the ends of justice would justify such exercise of power although the ultimate consequence may be acquittal or dismissal of indictment.
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 to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being ::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2024 20:32:17 :::CIS 6 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:6583 ) the ultimate guiding factor. No doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful effects on the public and consist of wrongdoing that seriously endangers and threatens the well-being of society and it is not safe to leave the crime-doer only because .
he and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or 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, dacoity, 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 public servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between the 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 a civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or 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." (Emphasis supplied)
59. B.S. Joshi [(2003) 4 SCC 675: 2003 SCC (Cri) 848], Nikhil Merchant [(2008) 9 SCC 677 : (2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 858], Manoj Sharma [(2008) 16 SCC 1 : (2010) 4 SCC (Cri) 145] and Shiji [(2011) 10 SCC 705 : (2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 101] do illustrate the principle that the High Court may quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 of the Code and Section 320 does not limit or affect the powers of the High Court under Section 482. Can it be said that by quashing criminal proceedings in B.S. Joshi [(2003) 4 SCC 675:::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2024 20:32:17 :::CIS 7
Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:6583 ) 2003 SCC (Cri) 848], Nikhil Merchant [(2008) 9 SCC 677 : (2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 858], Manoj Sharma [(2008) 16 SCC 1 : (2010) 4 SCC (Cri) 145] and Shiji [(2011) 10 SCC 705 : (2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 101] this Court has compounded the non-compoundable offences .
indirectly? We do not think so. There does exist the distinction between compounding an offence under Section 320 and quashing a criminal case by the High Court in the exercise of inherent power under Section 482. The two powers are distinct and different although the ultimate consequence may be the same viz. acquittal of the accused or dismissal of indictment.
60. We find no incongruity in the above principle of law and the decisions of this Court in Simrikhia [(1990) 2 SCC 437: 1990 SCC (Cri) 327], Dharampal [(1993) 1 SCC 435: 1993 SCC (Cri) 333: 1993 Cri LJ 1049], Arun Shankar Shukla [(1999) 6 SCC 146: 1999 SCC (Cri) 1076: AIR 1999 SC 2554], Ishwar Singh [(2008) 15 SCC 667 :
(2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 1153], Rumi Dhar [(2009) 6 SCC 364 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1074] and Ashok Sadarangani [(2012) 11 SCC 321]. The principle propounded in Simrikhia [(1990) 2 SCC 437: 1990 SCC (Cri) 327] that the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court cannot be invoked to override express bar provided in law is by now well settled. In Dharampal [(1993) 1 SCC 435: 1993 SCC (Cri) 333:
1993 Cri LJ 1049] the Court observed the same thing that the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code cannot be utilised for exercising powers which are expressly barred by the Code. A similar statement of law is made in Arun Shankar Shukla [(1999) 6 SCC 146: 1999 SCC (Cri) 1076: AIR 1999 SC 2554].
In Ishwar Singh [(2008) 15 SCC 667: (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 1153] the accused was alleged to have committed an offence punishable under Section 307 IPC and with reference to Section 320 of the Code, it was held that the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC was not compoundable offence and there was express bar in Section 320 that no offence shall be compounded if it is not compoundable under the Code. In Rumi Dhar [(2009) 6 SCC 364 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1074] although the accused had paid the entire due amount as per the settlement with the bank in the matter of recovery before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, the accused was being proceeded with for the commission of the offences under Sections 120-B/420/467/468/471 IPC along with ::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2024 20:32:17 :::CIS 8 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:6583 ) the bank officers who were being prosecuted under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Court refused to quash the charge against the accused by holding that the Court would not quash a case involving a crime .
against the society when a prima facie case has been made out against the accused for framing the charge. Ashok Sadarangani [(2012) 11 SCC 321] was again a case where the accused persons were charged of having committed the offences under Sections 120-B, 465, 467, 468 and 471 IPC and the allegations were that the accused secured the credit facilities by submitting forged property documents as collaterals and utilised such facilities in a dishonest and fraudulent manner by opening letters of credit in respect of foreign supplies of goods, without actually bringing any goods but inducing the bank to negotiate the letters of credit in favour of foreign suppliers and also by misusing the cash-credit facility. The Court was alive to the reference made in one of the present matters and also the decisions in B.S. Joshi [(2003) 4 SCC 675: 2003 SCC (Cri) 848], Nikhil Merchant [(2008) 9 SCC 677 :
(2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 858] and Manoj Sharma [(2008) 16 SCC 1 :
(2010) 4 SCC (Cri) 145] and it was held that B.S. Joshi [(2003) 4 SCC 675: 2003 SCC (Cri) 848] and Nikhil Merchant [(2008) 9 SCC 677 : (2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 858] dealt with different factual situation as the dispute involved had overtures of a civil dispute but the case under consideration in Ashok Sadarangani [(2012) 11 SCC 321] was more on the criminal intent than on a civil aspect. The decision in Ashok Sadarangani [(2012) 11 SCC 321] supports the view that criminal matters involving overtures of a civil dispute stand on a different footing.
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 complaint in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 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 ::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2024 20:32:17 :::CIS 9 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:6583 ) court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR may be exercised where the offender and the 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 have a serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and the offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like the 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 overwhelmingly and predominately civil flavour stand on a different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from a 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, the High Court may quash the criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the 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 the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that the criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well ::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2024 20:32:17 :::CIS 10 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:6583 ) within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding." (Emphasis supplied)
11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court examined the power of the .
Court to quash the FIR based on the compromise in Narender Singh versus State of Punjab, 2014 (6) SCC 466 and laid down the following principles:-
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:
29.1. 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. 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.
While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives. 29.3. Such a power is not to 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.
::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2024 20:32:17 :::CIS 11Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:6583 ) Similarly, the offences alleged to have been committed under special statutes 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 hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationships 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 are to be generally treated as crimes 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 whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or if 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 the injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delicate parts of the body, the nature of weapons used, etc. Medical reports 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 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 ::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2024 20:32:17 :::CIS 12 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:6583 ) the latter case, it would be permissible for the High Court to accept the plea compounding the offence based on a 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, the 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 this reason that at this stage the investigation is still on and even the chargesheet has not been filed. Likewise, in those cases where the charge is framed but the evidence is yet to start or the evidence is still at the infancy stage, the High Court can show benevolence in exercising its powers favourably, but after a 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 to 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 the 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, therefore, there is no question of sparing a convict found guilty of such a crime." (Emphasis supplied) ::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2024 20:32:17 :::CIS 13 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:6583 )
12. This question was again considered in Parbatbhai Aahir v.
State of Gujarat, (2017) 9 SCC 641: (2018) 1 SCC (Cri) 1: 2017 SCC OnLine SC .
1189 and the following principles were summarized:
16. The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject, may be summarised in the following propositions:
16.1. Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court.
16.2. 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 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- compoundable.
16.3. In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power.
16.4. 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.
16.5. 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.::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2024 20:32:17 :::CIS 14
Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:6583 ) 16.6. In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been 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 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 offences.
16.7. 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 insofar as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned.
16.8. 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.
16.9. 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 16.10. There is yet an exception to the principle set out in proposition 16.8. and 16.9. 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 financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance." (Emphasis supplied) ::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2024 20:32:17 :::CIS 15 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:6583 )
13. Similar principles were laid down in State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan, (2019) 5 SCC 688: (2019) 2 SCC (Cri) 706: 2019 SCC OnLine SC .
320 and it was observed:
"15. Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of this Court on the point, referred to hereinabove, it is observed and held as under:
15.1. That the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non-
compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves;
15.2. Such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved 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;
15.3. Similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under special statutes 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;
15.4. Offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act, etc. would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be treated as crimes against the society and not against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal proceedings for the offence under Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act, etc. which have a serious impact on the society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code, on the ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute ::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2024 20:32:17 :::CIS 16 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:6583 ) amongst themselves. 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 whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or if the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to framing the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of the injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delicate parts of the body, the nature of weapons used, etc. However, such an exercise by the High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation the chargesheet is filed/the charge is framed and/or during the trial. Such exercise is not permissible when the matter is still under investigation. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in paras 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in Narinder Singh [Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 :
(2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 54] should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove;
15.5. While exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non-
compoundable offences, which are private and do not have a serious impact on society, on the ground that there is a settlement/compromise between the victim and the offender, the High Court is required to consider the antecedents of the accused; the conduct of the accused, namely, whether the accused was absconding and why he was absconding, how he had managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise, etc." (Emphasis supplied)
14. It was laid down in Gian Singh (supra) that heinous and serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity etc. cannot be quashed ::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2024 20:32:17 :::CIS 17 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:6583 ) based on the compromise and only offences which are predominantly civil in nature can be compromised. It was observed:
.
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 complaint in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 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 FIR may be exercised where the offender and the 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 have a serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and the offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like the 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 overwhelmingly and predominately civil flavour stand on a different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from a 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, the High Court may quash the criminal proceedings if in its ::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2024 20:32:17 :::CIS 18 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:6583 ) view, because of the compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the 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 the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that the criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."
15. It is apparent from these judgments that the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC is not only non-compoundable but cannot be quashed based on the compromise in the exercise of the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
16. In view of the above, the present petition fails and the same is dismissed, so also the pending applications, if any.
17. The observation made hereinabove shall remain confined to the disposal of the petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the case.
(Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 8th August, 2024 (ravinder) ::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2024 20:32:17 :::CIS