Himachal Pradesh High Court
Rakesh Sharma vs Rohit Sharma & Others on 27 August, 2018
Author: Sanjay Karol
Bench: Sanjay Karol
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No.212 of 2018 .
Decided on: 27.8.2018
Rakesh Sharma ...Petitioner.
Versus
Rohit Sharma & others .Respondents.
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Acting Chief Justice Whether approved for reporting?
For the petitioner: Mr.I.S. Chandel, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr.Arun Kumar, Advocate, for respondents No.1 to 3.
Mr.Adarsh K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General with Ms.Svaneel Jaswal, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No.4.
Sanjay Karol, Acting Chief Justice (oral) Petitioner Rakesh Sharma and respondent Nos.1 to 3 namely, Rohit Sharma, Yogita and Kajal Ghazta, respectively, are present in person, who stand duly identified by their learned counsel.
2. This petition, under the provisions of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Code'), has been preferred by the petitioners for quashing FIR No.560/2015, dated 8.12.2015, registered at Police Station, Dhalli, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, for commission of offence, under the provisions of Sections 279 and 337 India Penal Code and Sections 181 and 185 of Motor Vehicles Act.
::: Downloaded on - 12/12/2008 05:44:39 :::HCHP 23. This petition stood filed on the premise that the matter already stands compromised between the parties. Today, when the .
case was taken up for consideration, learned counsel for the petitioner, under instructions from petitioner and respondents No.1 to 3, who are present in Court, states that the matter stands compromised between the parties.
4. This is not such a case wherein the offences for which the petitioner has been charged can be stricto sensu held to be the offences against the State. Even otherwise, in view of the terms of the compromise, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and the continuation of the criminal case against the petitioner would put him to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case.
5. In Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr. JT 2014 (4) SC 573, the Hon'ble Supreme Court after summing up the legal position has laid down the following guidelines for the High Court in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its powers 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 the criminal proceedings, which reads thus:-
"(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 ::: Downloaded on - 12/12/2008 05:44:39 :::HCHP 3 the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash 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 when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves.
::: Downloaded on - 12/12/2008 05:44:39 :::HCHP 4(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 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 ::: Downloaded on - 12/12/2008 05:44:39 :::HCHP 5 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 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 ::: Downloaded on - 12/12/2008 05:44:39 :::HCHP 6 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."
6. Keeping in view the aforesaid guidelines, it is not disputed that the parties have reached a settlement and on that basis have preferred the present petition, seeking quashment of the FIR. In view of the compromise, when the complainant does not want to hold the petitioner responsible, quashing of such FIR would definitely be to secure the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of process of the Court.
7. The facts of this case otherwise do not in any manner fall within the exceptions laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court where compromise cannot be entered into or the proceedings cannot be quashed.
8. Thus, taking holistic view of the matter and looking into all attending facts and circumstances, I find this case to be a fit case to exercise powers under Section 482 of the Code and accordingly FIR No.560/2015, dated 8.12.2015, registered at Police Station, Dhalli, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, for commission of offence, under the provisions of Sections 279 and 337 India Penal Code and Sections 181 ::: Downloaded on - 12/12/2008 05:44:39 :::HCHP 7 and 185 of Motor Vehicles Act, are hereby rendered infructuous. However, the same are expressly quashed so as .
to obviate any confusion.
With the aforesaid observations, present petition stands allowed and disposed of accordingly, so also pending application(s), if any.
Copy dasti.
( Sanjay Karol) Acting Chief Justice August 27, 2018 ( vt ) ::: Downloaded on - 12/12/2008 05:44:39 :::HCHP