Himachal Pradesh High Court
Anil Kumar Thakur vs State Of H.P. & Another on 24 June, 2019
Author: Vivek Singh Thakur
Bench: Vivek Singh Thakur
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr. MMO No. 161 of 2019
.
Decided on : 24th June, 2019
____________________________________________________________
Anil Kumar Thakur ......Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. & another
.....Respondents
Coram:
For the petitioner
r :
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?_____
Mr. Mohan Singh, Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. S.C. Sharma and
Mr.Narinder Guleria,
Additional Advocate General
with Mr.R.R.Rahi, Deputy
Advocate General, and
Mr.Sunny Datwalia,Assistant
Advocate General for
respondent No.1 and Mr.
Sanjay Kumar Sharma,
Advocate, for respondent
No.2.
Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge (Oral)
Present petition has been filed for quashing of FIR No. 44 of 2017 dated 1.4.2017 registered under Sections 353 and 332 of Indian Penal Code at P.S. West Shimla, District Shimla H.P., and criminal proceedings, if initiated in pursuance thereto, on the basis of compromise, ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2019 23:48:04 :::HCHP 2 arrived at between petitioner-accused and complainant-
respondent No. 2.
.
2. Petitioner/accused and respondent No. 2- complainant are present in Court, who are duly identified by their respective counsel. Their statements on oath have also been recorded.
3. Respondent No. 2, complainant, present in person in Court today, endorses compromise, (Annexure P-
2) and in his statement, recorded on oath in this Court, has not only reiterated signing of the compromise by him and petitioner/accused with free consent and will without any coercion and pressure but also deposed to the effect that he is driver in HRTC Depot and on the day of incident, he was deputed on the route to ply the bus to village of petitioner and the scuffle between him and petitioner had occurred on account of misunderstanding which was proceeded by an attempt of petitioner to keep his luggage on the bonnet of vehicle, when he was cleaning it.
4. He has further stated that later on both of them have realized their mistake as the incident could have been avoided and after the incident he was deputed on the same route and whereafter he found that behaviour of petitioner was very courteous towards the staff of HRTC and other ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2019 23:48:04 :::HCHP 3 staff members have also given the same feedback about humbleness and good nature of petitioner, but the incident .
in question was unfortunate. He has also stated that now they are having good relations and in the aforesaid background, he intends to withdraw his complaint/FIR for compounding the case and he does not want to pursue the criminal proceedings against the petitioner. He has also r to stated that though he was on duty, but the incident is of personal in nature, therefore, he has agreed to withdraw the complaint filed by him against the petitioner and has sought permission to compound the matter and prays for quashing of FIR and consequential proceedings initiated in pursuant thereto.
5. The petitioner/accused also, in his statement, by endorsing the deposition of respondent, has stated that he has heard the statement of complainant and endorsed the same to be true and correct and admitted his signatures on compromise placed on record, out of his free will and consent and also without any threat, coercion or pressure etc. and prayed for disposal of present petition in terms of compromise.
::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2019 23:48:04 :::HCHP 46. It is contended on behalf of respondent-
State that 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.PC.
7. 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 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 ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2019 23:48:04 :::HCHP 5 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 nature where parties r to such disputes where wrong is basically private or personal mutually resolve their amicably. It was also held that no category or cases for this dispute 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.
8. The Apex Court, in case Narinder Singh and Ors.
Vs. State of Punjab and Ors. (2014) 6 SCC 466, has sum 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.
::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2019 23:48:04 :::HCHP 69. No doubt Sections 332 and 353 of IPC are not compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C. However, as .
explained by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh's and Narinder Singh'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 CrPC, if warranted in given facts circumstances of the case for ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court, even in those cases and which are not compoundable where parties have settled the matter between themselves.
10. In present case, complainant and accused have appeared and by endorsing the compromise filed with petition, duly signed by them, with free consent and will without any coercion or threat, stated that the FIR, in present case, is result of misunderstanding between the them. 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 Further, offence in question does not fall in the category of offences prohibited for compounding in terms of ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2019 23:48:04 :::HCHP 7 the pronouncements of the Apex Court by exercising power under Section 482 of the CrPC.
.
12 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.44 of 2017 dated 1.4.2017, registered Consequent to under Sections 353 and 332 of Indian Penal Code at Police Station, West Shimla, District Shimla, H.P. is quashed.
quashing of FIR, criminal proceedings if initiated against accused in pursuance thereto, are also quashed.
13 Petition stands disposed of in above terms.
(Vivek Singh Thakur) Judge June 24, 2019 (ms) ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2019 23:48:04 :::HCHP