Himachal Pradesh High Court
Sh. V.K. Sachdeva Alias Vinod Kumar ... vs State Of Hp And Another on 1 November, 2019
Author: Vivek Singh Thakur
Bench: Vivek Singh Thakur
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr.MMO No. 595 of 2019
Decided on: 1.11.2019
.
Sh. V.K. Sachdeva alias Vinod Kumar Sachdeva ....Petitioner.
Versus
State of HP and another ... Respondents.
................................................................................................
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the petitioner. : Ms. Anjali Soni Verma, Advocate.
Petitioner V.K. Sachdeva in person.
For the respondents : Mr. S.C. Sharma, Additional
Advocate General with Mr. Kamal
Kishore Sharma, Dy. Advocate
General for respondent No.1.
: Ms. Shivani Tegta, Advocate for
respondent No.2.
Respondent No.2 Asha Kumari in
person.
Vivek Singh Thakur, J.(Oral)
Present petition has been preferred under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 2 of 2013 dated 17.2.2013, registered at Police Station, Kangra, District Kangra (H.P.) under Sections 294 and 504 of Indian Penal Code, lodged by respondent No.2 (Asha Kumari) and consequential proceedings initiated in pursuance thereto 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 05/11/2019 20:24:06 :::HCHP 2against the petitioner. Present petition has been filed on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.
.
2. Petitioner/accused V.K. Sachdeva alias Vinod Kumar Sachdeva and complainant/respondent No.2 Asha Kumari are present in Court, who have been duly identified by their respective counsel and their statements have also been recorded on oath.
3. Complainant Asha Kumari, in her statement has stated that FIR No. 2/2013 dated 17.2.2013 was lodged at her instance and that accused/petitioner is resident of Punjab and she is resident of District Kangra and on the date of incident, petitioner/accused had uttered certain words in Punjabi, which were understood by her as abuse to her as mentioned in the FIR. She has further stated that according to petitioner he had addressed one Mr. Baldev Singh, Mason in Punjabi, which was wrongly understood by her as obscene words uttered to her and she had also made a complaint to D.R.M., Ferozpur as well as Branch Secretary, N.R.M.U. and U.R.M.U and thereafter FIR in question was lodged at Police Station, Kangra and that now the matter stands amicably settled with the petitioner/accused after removal of misunderstanding and keeping in view the future of both of the parties, she has entered into compromise, which has been reduced into writing and placed on record as Annexure P-2. She has also categorically stated that she has entered into the compromise, ::: Downloaded on - 05/11/2019 20:24:06 :::HCHP 3 signed it and deposed in Court out of her free will, consent and without any external pressure, coercion or threat of any kind.
.
4 Petitioner V.K. Sachdeva, present in Court, has stated that at the time of lodging of FIR, he was the Controlling Officer of complainant/respondent No.2 and now he stands transferred to Ferozpur and has no control over the Staff in Himachal Pradesh including the complainant/respondent No.2 and that her Controlling Officer is one Mr. K.C. Dogra, who is resident of Himachal Pradesh.
He has further stated that on the day of incident, he had commented upon Mr. Balbir Singh, Mason and had not uttered any words with regard to complainant/respondent No.2 but it appears that she had construed that he had commented upon her, therefore, the entire episode happened and now the said misunderstanding stands removed and complainant/respondent No.2 has agreed for making a prayer for quashing of the FIR and compromise has also been reduced into writing and placed on record as Annexure P-2. It is also stated by him that he has entered into compromise and deposed in this Court today out of his free will, consent and also without any fear, threat, pressure or coercion.
5. It is contended on behalf of respondent-State that accused is not entitled to invoke inherent jurisdiction of this Court to exercise ::: Downloaded on - 05/11/2019 20:24:06 :::HCHP 4 its power keeping in view the nature of offence committed by petitioner.
.
6. 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.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.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 ::: Downloaded on - 05/11/2019 20:24:06 :::HCHP 5 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 Parbatbhai Aahir alias Parbathbhai 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.
8. 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)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.
9. No doubt Sections 294 of IPC is not compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C., however, as explained by Hon'ble Supreme Court ::: Downloaded on - 05/11/2019 20:24:06 :::HCHP 6 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 Cr.P.C. and FIR as well as criminal proceedings can be quashed by exercising inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 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
10. to where parties have settled the matter between themselves.
Keeping in view the fact that complainant has appeared and endorsed the compromise arrived at with petitioner/accused, I find that it is a fit case to exercise power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and further even otherwise if criminal proceedings are allowed to continue, no fruitful purpose is going to be served.
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. Further, offence in question as alleged does not fall in the category of offences prohibited for compounding in terms of the ::: Downloaded on - 05/11/2019 20:24:06 :::HCHP 7 pronouncements of the Apex Court by exercising power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. In view of statement of respondent .
No.2/complainant recorded on oath in this Court, prayer of petitioner can be allowed.
13. Keeping in view nature and gravity of offence and 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.2 of 2013 dated 17.2.2013 registered at Police Station, Kangra, H.P. is quashed.
Consequent to quashing of FIR, criminal proceedings i.e. Case No. 198-II/2013, titled as State of H.P. vs. V.K. Sachdeva pending before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra, District Kangra, H.P. initiated in pursuance to the aforesaid FIR, are also quashed.
Petition stands disposed of in above terms, so also pending application, if any.
(Vivek Singh Thakur) Judge 1st November, 2019.
(Guleria) ::: Downloaded on - 05/11/2019 20:24:06 :::HCHP