Himachal Pradesh High Court
Manoj Kumar And Another vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Others on 4 March, 2023
Author: Sushil Kukreja
Bench: Sushil Kukreja
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
.
Cr.MMO No.1238 of 2022
Date of Decision: 04.03.2023
_________________________________________________
Manoj Kumar and another
....Petitioners
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & others
...Respondents
_________________________________________________
Coram r
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge
Whether approved for reporting?1
________________________________________________
For the petitioner : Mr. Bhim Raj Sharma, Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional
Advocate General with Mr. R.P.
Singh, Deputy Advocate General,
for respondent No.1/ State.
Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate, for
respondents No.2 & 3.
________________________________________________
Sushil Kukreja, Judge (Oral)
The accused persons (petitioners herein), after compromising the matter with respondents No.2 and 3, have come up before this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), by invoking inherent powers of this Court, seeking quashing of FIR No.88/2017, dated 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2023 20:33:12 :::CIS 221.06.2017, under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal .
Code (IPC), registered at Police Station Fatehpur, District Kangra, H.P.
2. The present FIR was lodged at the instance of respondents No.2 and 3, who are duly represented and identified by Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate.
3. Today, respondents No.2 and 3 as well as the petitioners are present in person and a joint statement of respondents No.2 and 3 has been separately recorded and placed on the file.
4. Respondents No.2 and 3 have stated that F.I.R.
bearing No.88/2017, dated 21.06.2017 was registered at their instance against the petitioners-accused at Police Station Fatehpur, District Kangra, H.P., under Sections 279 and 337, IPC. They further stated that now they have entered into a compromise with the petitioners-accused, vide compromise-deed, Annexure P-2 and, therefore, they have no objection, if the aforesaid FIR and the consequent proceedings arising out of the said FIR, pending before the ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2023 20:33:12 :::CIS 3 learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jawali, District Kangra, .
H.P., are quashed and set aside.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Additional Advocate General for respondent No.1/ State as well as the learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 and also gone through the material available on record. r
6. 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, including Section 320 Cr.P.C., the Hon'ble Apex Court 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 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2023 20:33:12 :::CIS 4 and serious offences or offence like murder, rape and dacoity .
etc. should not be quashed despite victim or victim's 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 predominately 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. Further, the Apex Court in Parbatbhai Aahir alias Parbhathbhai Bhimsinghbhai Karmur and others vs. State of Gujarat and another, (2017) 9 SCC 641, summarizing the broad principles regarding inherent powers ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2023 20:33:12 :::CIS 5 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. 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, the Hon'ble Supreme Court 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, Section 279 is not compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C. However, as explained by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh's, Narinder Singh's, Parbatbhai Aahir's and Laxmi Narayan's cases supra, power of High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not inhibited by the provisions of Section 320 Cr.P.C. and FIR as ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2023 20:33:12 :::CIS 6 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 securing the 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.
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 the nature of the case, to save the time of the Court for utilizing to decide more effective and meaningful litigation, a common sense approach, based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of law, should be applied.
11. In the instant case, since the matter has been amicably settled between the parties, therefore, keeping in view the nature of the offence, I am of the considered view that no fruitful purpose will be served to continue the proceedings against the petitioners-accused as continuation of the proceedings will be an exercise in futility. The justice in ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2023 20:33:12 :::CIS 7 the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put .
to an end and peace is restored in order to maintain harmonious relations/ atmosphere between them.
12. Hence, considering the facts and the circumstances of the case in entirety, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves to be allowed for securing the ends of justice and, therefore, the same is allowed.
Accordingly, FIR No.88/2017, dated 21.06.2017, registered against the petitioners-accused under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC at Police Station Fatehpur, District Kangra, H.P., as well as consequent proceedings arising out of the said FIR, pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jawali, District Kangra, H.P., are ordered to be quashed and set-aside.
13. The petition stands disposed of in above terms, so also the pending application(s), if any.
( Sushil Kukreja )
March 04, 2023 Judge
(VH)
::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2023 20:33:12 :::CIS