Himachal Pradesh High Court
Shri Satya Prakash Sharma And Others vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 4 December, 2018
Author: Tarlok Singh Chauhan
Bench: Tarlok Singh Chauhan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA .
Cr. MMO No. 541 of 2018.
Date of decision: 04.12.2018.
Shri Satya Prakash Sharma and others .....Petitioners.
Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ..... Respondent.
Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 No
For the Petitioners : Mr.Harish Sharma,
Advocate.
For the Respondent : Mr.Vinod Thakur,
Additional Advocate
General with
Mr.Bhupinder Thakur,
Deputy Advocate General,
for respondent.
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (Oral).
This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Code') has been preferred by the petitioners for quashing of FIR No.204/2018 dated 3.07.2018, registered at Police Station, Shimla West, H.P. under Section 336 of IPC. The petitioners have further sought quashing of the proceedings that are now pending in the court of learned Judicial 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes ::: Downloaded on - 07/12/2018 22:56:13 :::HCHP 2 Magistrate 1st Class, Court No.7, Shimla, H.P in case No.432/2018 titled as "State of H.P. versus Satya Prakash and .
another", which in fact emanate from the FIR, in question.
2. Today, the petitioners are present in the Court and identified as such by Shri Harish Sharma, Advocate. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the parties have amicably settled the matter, as per compromise deed Annexure P-2, placed on the file and now, the complainant party does not want to proceed with the case in order to maintain cordial relations in future. It is not in dispute that the FIR, in question, came to be registered against petitioners No.1 and 2 lodged at the instance of petitioner No.3.
3. The moot question is whether the Court in such like cases can quash the proceedings on the basis of the compromise so entered into between the parties. The law on this subject has been summed up in a recent judgment of the Hon'ble Court in Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr. JT 2014 (4) SC 573, wherein it was held as under:-
"(I) 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 ::: Downloaded on - 07/12/2018 22:56:13 :::HCHP 3 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.
(II) 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.
(III)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. (IV)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 ::: Downloaded on - 07/12/2018 22:56:13 :::HCHP 4 when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves.
.
(V)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. (VI)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 ::: Downloaded on - 07/12/2018 22:56:13 :::HCHP 5 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. (VII) 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 ::: Downloaded on - 07/12/2018 22:56:13 :::HCHP 6 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."
4. It would be seen that prior to Narinder Singh's case (supra), a three Hon'ble Judges Bench had considered the relevant scope of Sections 482 and 320 Cr.P.C. in Gian Singh versus State of Punjab and another (2012) 10 SCC 303 wherein it was held that power of the High Court in quashing of the criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent power is distinct and different from the power of a Criminal Court for compounding offences under Section 320 Cr.P.C. While exercising inherent power of quashment under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime and its social impact. It warned the High Court for quashing proceedings in heinous and serious offences of mental depravity, murder, rape, dacoity etc. which principles have been reported and reaffirmed in Narinder Singh's case (supra).
::: Downloaded on - 07/12/2018 22:56:13 :::HCHP 75. On the basis of the aforesaid exposition of law, this Court is of the opinion that this is a case where the continuation of .
the criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law because the alleged offences are neither heinous offences showing extreme depravity nor are they strictly against the society. They are offences of personal nature and quashing the proceedings would bring about peace and amity between two sides.
6. In these circumstances, FIR No.204/2018 dated 30.7.2018 registered at Police Station, Shimla West, H.P. under Section 336 of IPC against petitioners No.1 and 2 and consequential proceedings arising therefrom in case No.432/2018 titled as "State of H.P. versus Satya Prakash & another" pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1 st Class, Court No.7, Shimla, are quashed.
7. The petition stands allowed in the aforesaid terms.
Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.
December 04, 2018. (Tarlok Singh Chauhan) (mamta) Judge ::: Downloaded on - 07/12/2018 22:56:13 :::HCHP