Himachal Pradesh High Court
Devinder Singh Alias Pinder Negi vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Another on 19 December, 2019
Author: Vivek Singh Thakur
Bench: Vivek Singh Thakur
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
SHIMLA
Cr.MMO No. 325 of 2019
.
Date of Decision: December 19, 2019
Devinder Singh alias Pinder Negi ...Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & another ..Respondents.
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the Petitioner: Mr. I.N. Mehta, Advocate.
Petitioner Devinder Singh alias Pinder Negi,
present in person.
For the Respondents: Ms. Rameeta Rahi, Additional Advocate
General, with M/s Kuldeep Chand, Kamal
Kant & Ms.Seema Sharma, Deputy
Advocate Generals, for respondent No.1.
Mr.Saurav Rattan, Advocate, for respondent
No.2
Respondent No.2 Kajal Thakur, present in
person.
Vivek Singh Thakur, J (Oral)
The instant petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.PC') has been filed by petitioner Devinder Singh alias Pinder Negi, on the basis of compromise (Annexures P-2 & A-1) arrived at between him and respondent No.2, for quashing of FIR No.0030 of 2019 dated 25.03.2019, registered at Police Station, Chopal, District Shimla, H.P., under Sections 354, 354-D and 363 of the Indian Penal Code 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? ::: Downloaded on - 21/12/2019 20:26:03 :::HCHP 2 (herein after referred to as 'IPC') and subsequent proceedings arising thereto.
2. Petitioner Devinder Singh alias Pinder Negi and respondent No.2 Kajal Thakur are present in person in the Court .
today, who have been identified by their respective learned counsel. Their statements, on oath, have also been recorded separately today in the Court.
3. In her statement complainant-respondent No.2 Kajal Thakur has stated that at the time of occurrence, she was pursuing her Computer Course in ITI Chopal and petitioner Devinder was known to their family. She has further stated that at the time of incident, there was a difference of opinion on an issue between them which led to happening of untoward incident, whereupon, she had lodged FIR and later on, on further clarification, she was of the opinion that the incident had happened on account of misunderstanding between them and, therefore, with the intervention of elders, matter has been amicably resolved and now she has decided to withdraw the complaint for quashing of FIR. She has further stated that settlement has been reduced into writing at Chopal and supplementary Compromise Deed has been prepared at Shimla, which have been placed on record with the petition. She has endorsed her signature thereon and has further stated that it has also been signed by petitioner Devinder Singh in presence of witnesses. Lastly she has deposed that she has signed the Compromise Deed and supplementary Compromise Deed and ::: Downloaded on - 21/12/2019 20:26:03 :::HCHP 3 deposed in this Court out of her free will, consent and without any external pressure, coercion or threat of any kind.
4. In his statement petitioner-accused Devinder Singh alias Pinder Negi has endorsed the statement of complainant-
.
respondent No.2 Kajal Thakur to be true and correct and further that incident could have been avoided. He has undertaken not to repeat such incident in future by behaving carefully and also endorsed his signatures in Compromise Deed and supplementary Compromise Deed and has further stated that the same have also been signed by respondent No.2 complainant Kajal Thakur in presence of witnesses. He has further stated that he has signed the Compromise Deed and the supplementary Compromise Deed and deposed in this Court out of his free will, consent and without any external pressure, coercion or threat of any kind.
5. It is contended on behalf of respondent No.1-State that petitioner-accused is 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. 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.PC, 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 ::: Downloaded on - 21/12/2019 20:26:03 :::HCHP 4 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 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 Parbhathbhai Bhimsinghbhai Karmur and others vs. State of Gujarat and another, (2017) 9 SCC 641 summarizing the board 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. ::: Downloaded on - 21/12/2019 20:26:03 :::HCHP 5
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 354 and 354-D of IPC are not compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C. However, as explained by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh's, Narinder Singh's, Parbhatbhai 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 CrPC 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 where parties have settled the matter between themselves.
10. Now, the dispute has been amicably resolved between the private parties on the basis of compromise arrived at between them, as after the incident no such occurrence has been repeated by the petitioner-accused and the incident in ::: Downloaded on - 21/12/2019 20:26:03 :::HCHP 6 question had happened on account of misunderstanding between the private parties and parties were known to each other and now their relations have again become cordial. Otherwise also, petitioner-accused Devinder Singh alias Pinder .
Negi was known to the family of complainant-respondent No.2 Kajal Thakur, as such, I am of the considered view that no fruitful purpose shall be served to continue the proceedings against the petitioner-accused Devinder Singh alias Pinder Negi.
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. 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.
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.0030 of 2019 dated 25.03.2019, registered at Police Station, Chopal, District Shimla, H.P., is quashed. Consequent to quashing ::: Downloaded on - 21/12/2019 20:26:03 :::HCHP 7 of FIR, criminal proceedings, if any, initiated against petitioner- accused person in pursuance thereto, are also quashed.
Petition stands disposed of in above terms, so also pending application(s), if any.
.
Copy Dasti.
(Vivek Singh Thakur), Judge.
December 19, 2019
(Purohit)
r to
::: Downloaded on - 21/12/2019 20:26:03 :::HCHP