Himachal Pradesh High Court
Rohit Thakur And Another vs State Of H.P on 25 September, 2019
Author: Vivek Singh Thakur
Bench: Vivek Singh Thakur
.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Cr.MMO No. 476 of 2019
Date of Decision 25th September, 2019
_________________________________________________________________
Rohit Thakur and another ...Petitioners
Versus
State of H.P. .... Respondent
Coram r
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, J.
Whether approved for reporting?
______________________________________________________________
For the Petitioners: Ms. Suchitra Sen, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr.Desh Raj Thakur, Additional
Advocate General for respondent.
Vivek Singh Thakur, J.(Oral)
Present petition has been preferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 241 of 2018 dated 10.9.2018, registered at P.S.Balh, District Mandi (H.P.) under Sections 279 and 337 IPC lodged by petitioner No.1 Rohit Thakur and consequential proceedings initiated in pursuance thereto against petitioner No.2. Present petition ::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2019 20:25:19 :::HCHP 2 has been filed on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.
.
2. Petitioner No.1/complainant and petitioner No.2/accused, duly identified by their counsel, are present in Court and their statements have also been recorded on oath today in the Court.
3. Accused/petitioner No.2 has stated that untoward incident had happened on account of his mistake, as he has realized that had he been more careful, the incident could have been avoided and therefore, feeling guilty for said incident, he has apologized to petitioner No.1/complainant, who has forgiven him and he has also undertaken to be more careful in future not to repeat such mistake. He has further stated that a compromise has also been arrived at between them, which has been placed on record in original and the same has been signed by him and petitioner No.1 Rohit Thakur. He has further stated that compromise as well as his deposition in Court are out of his free will, consent and without any fear, threat, pressure or coercion.
::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2019 20:25:19 :::HCHP 34 Complainant/petitioner No.1, in his statement by endorsing the above referred statement to be true and .
correct, has stated that since petitioner No.2/accused has realized his mistake and assured to be careful in future and has repentance for his act, therefore, he has forgiven him.
He has also stated that he has signed compromise, arrived at between him and accused, and deposed in Court out of his free will, consent and 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 its power on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties with respect to an offence not compoundable under Section 320 Cr.PC.
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 ::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2019 20:25:19 :::HCHP 4 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 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 ::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2019 20:25:19 :::HCHP 5 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.
::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2019 20:25:19 :::HCHP 69 No doubt Sections 279 of IPC 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.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 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. In present case, complainant and accused have appeared and by endorsing the compromise stated that complainant agreed for not to pursue the proceedings initiated against petitioner No.2/accused any further as he has realized his mistake and assured to be careful in future and he has also repentance for his act. Since both the parties have compromised the matter, I find that it is a fit case to exercise power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and further ::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2019 20:25:19 :::HCHP 7 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 pronouncements of the Apex Court by exercising power under Section 482 of the CrPC. In view of statement of petitioner No.1/complainant recorded on oath in this Court, prayer made in petition 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.241 of 2018 dated 10.9.2018, ::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2019 20:25:19 :::HCHP 8 registered at Police Station, Balh, District Mandi, H.P. is quashed. Consequent to quashing of FIR, criminal .
proceedings i.e. Criminal Case No. 330 of 2018, titled as State of H.P. vs. Rahul Kumar pending before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandi, District Mandi are also quashed.
14 Petition stands disposed of in above terms.
September 25, 2019 (Vivek Singh Thakur)
(ms) Judge
::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2019 20:25:19 :::HCHP