Himachal Pradesh High Court
State Of Himachal Pradesh vs Madan Lal And Others on 26 September, 2018
Author: Vivek Singh Thakur
Bench: Vivek Singh Thakur
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 348 of 2007 Date of decision: 26.9.2018 .
State of Himachal Pradesh. ...Appellant
Versus
Madan Lal and others. ...Respondents
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant: Mr.Shiv Pal Manhans & Mrs.Rameeta Kumari, Additional Advocate Generals with Mr.Raju Ram Rahi, Deputy Advocate General.
For the Respondent: Mr.Raman Sethi, Advocate.
Vivek Singh Thakur Judge (oral) Present appeal has been filed by State against judgment acquittal of accused-respondents, dated 14.5.2007 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Kasauli, district Solan, in Criminal Case No. 36/2 of 06/2004 in case FIR No. 2 of 2004, registered in Police Station, Parwanoo, District, Solan, H.P. under Sections 341, 323, 325, 147 IPC.
2. Pending adjudication appeal, applicants/respondents have preferred an application, i.e. Cr.MP No. 1368 of 2018, seeking permission to compound the matter with the complainant party on the ground that the complainant and respondents are inhabitants of one and same village and have reconciled the matter and are now having good relations and talking terms with each other and are living with peace and harmony and dispute between them stands settled completely after forgetting the bitterness of the past and thus, complainant-injured does not want to pursue the matter any further and instead of sentencing the respondents, they are interested for compounding the matter to continue the peaceful relations between the parties.
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes ::: Downloaded on - 03/10/2018 22:56:52 :::HCHP 2 Cr. Appeal No. 348 of 2007
3. Statement of injured PW-5 Radhey Shyam and joint statements of PW-2 Ram Singh, PW-4 Bharat Singh and PW-6 Joginder as well as of respondents-accused have been recorded on oath. They have endorsed the .
contents of the application and affidavits filed in its support. Complainant PW- 3 Geeta Ram who was father of PW-2 Ram Singh and PW-5 Radhey Shyam has expired on 29.1.2018 and copy of his death certificate has also been placed on record.
4. The respondents have been charged for commission of offence under Sections 341, 323, 325 and 147 IPC. Sections 323 and 341 are compoundable without leave of the Court under Section 320 (1) Cr.P.C, whereas Section 325 can be compounded under Section 320 (2) Cr.P.C. with permission of the Court. But Section 147 IPC is a non-compoundable offence.
5. It is contended on behalf of appellant-State that accused persons are 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. Offence under Section 147 of the IPC is non-compoundable. 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.P.C., 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 ::: Downloaded on - 03/10/2018 22:56:52 :::HCHP 3 Cr. Appeal No. 348 of 2007 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.P.C. 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. Hon'ble Supreme 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.
8. No doubt Section 147 IPC is 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 Cr.P.C. and FIR as well as criminal proceedings can be quashed by exercising inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.PC, 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. ::: Downloaded on - 03/10/2018 22:56:52 :::HCHP 4 Cr. Appeal No. 348 of 2007
9. Offences in question 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. In view of .
statements of complainant party and petitioners-accused, recorded on oath it would be appropriate to allow prayer of applicants/respondents.
10. In view of above, keeping in view the ratio of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and considering facts and evidence of the case in its entirety, present petition is allowed and matter is permitted to be compounded. Consequently, the appeal preferred by the appellant-State is disposed of as compounded.
(Vivek Singh Thakur),
26th September, 2018 Judge.
(KRS)
::: Downloaded on - 03/10/2018 22:56:52 :::HCHP