Himachal Pradesh High Court
Chander Mohan vs State Of Punjab And Ors. Reported ... on 13 April, 2022
Author: Vivek Singh Thakur
Bench: Vivek Singh Thakur
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
ON THE 13th DAY OF APRIL, 2022
BEFORE
.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIVEK SINGH THAKUR
CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION (MAIN) U/S 482 CRPC NO.215 OF
2022
Between:-
1. CHANDER MOHAN
S/O SH.DEVINDER KWELA,
R/O VILLAGE KALJAR, POST OFFICE
MATIANA, TEHSIL THEOG,
DISTRICT SHIMLA, H.P.,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS.
2. MANOJ THAKUR
S/O SH.DEVINDER THAKUR,
R/O VILLAGE NANNI, POST OFFICE
MATIANA, TEHSIL THEOG,
DISTRICT SHIMLA, H.P.,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS.
3. RAJINDER THAKUR
S/O SH.SURINDER THAKUR,
R/O VILLAGE SHUNTHI, POST OFFICE
MATIANA, TEHSIL THEOG,
DISTRICT SHIMLA, H.P.,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS.
4. ROHIT CHANDEL
S/O SH.NARINDER CHANDEL,
R/O VILLAGE JHALRU, POST OFFICE
MATIANA, TEHSIL THEOG,
DISTRICT SHIMLA, H.P.,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS.
5. SANJAY THAKUR
S/O SH.NARINDER SINGH THAKUR,
R/O VILLAGE NANNI, POST OFFICE
MATIANA, TEHSIL THEOG,
DISTRICT SHIMLA, H.P.,
.....PETITIONERS
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS.
(BY SH.RAVINDER SINGH CHANDEL,
ADVOCATE)
(PETITIONERS ARE PRESENT IN PERSON)
AND
::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2022 20:04:40 :::CIS
2
1. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
THROUGH SECRETARY HOME TO THE
GOVT. OF H.P.
(BY MS.DIVYA SOOD, DEPUTY ADVOCATE
GENERAL)
.
2. PRATAP RAJTA
S/O SH.SHIV RAM,
R/O VILLAGE REOG, POST OFFICE
BHALOG, TEHSIL KUMARSAIN,
DISTRICT SHIMLA, H.P.,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS.
....RESPONDENTS
(BY MS.POOJA THAKUR, ADVOCATE)
(RESPONDENT NO.2 PRESENT IN
PERSON)
Whether approved for reporting?
This petition coming on for admission this day, the
Court passed the following:
ORDER
The instant petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.PC') has been filed by petitioners Chander Mohan, Manoj Thakur, Rajinder Thakur, Rohit Chandel, Sanjay Thakur, on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2) arrived at between them and respondent No.2-Pratap Rajta, for quashing of FIR No.55 of 2014, dated 02.05.2014, registered in Police Station Theog, District Shimla, H.P., under Sections 323, 325, 147 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') and consequent proceedings arising thereto pending before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimla, H.P.
2. Petitioners-accused Chander Mohan, Manoj Thakur, Rajinder Thakur, Rohit Chandel, Sanjay Thakur and Complainant-
::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2022 20:04:40 :::CIS 3respondent No.2 Pratap Rajta are present in the Court. All of them have been duly identified by their respective counsel.
Their statements on oath have also been recorded separately in .
the Court.
3. In his statement, complainant-respondent No.2 Pratap Rajta, endorsing that he has lodged the FIR, has stated that petitioners-accused persons are residents of the villages of area located nearby his village. He has further stated that the untoward incident had occurred on account of misunderstanding and after the incident petitioners have realized their mistake and have explained the misunderstanding due to which incident had occurred and after taking into consideration their explanation and their undertaking not to commit such mistake in future, he has agreed to compromise the matter and, therefore, he has entered into a compromise. He has also endorsed his signatures on the affidavit sworn in by him, seeking permission to withdraw the complaint for quashing of FIR and close the criminal proceedings arising thereto. He has further stated that he has deposed in this Court, out of his free will, consent and without any external pressure, coercion or threat of any kind.
4. In their joint statement, petitioners-accused Chander Mohan, Manoj Thakur, Rajinder Thakur, Rohit Chandel and Sanjay Thakur, endorsing statement of complainant-respondent No.2 Pratap Rajta to be true and correct, have stated that they feel guilty for commission of offence and, therefore, they have apologized for their act and complainant has forgiven them and has agreed to withdraw the complaint for quashing of FIR. They ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2022 20:04:40 :::CIS 4 have further undertaken not to repeat such incident in future.
They have further stated that they have deposed in this Court out of their free will, consent and without any external pressure, .
coercion or threat of any kind.
5. It is contended on behalf of the respondent-State that petitioners-accused 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.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 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 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2022 20:04:40 :::CIS 5 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 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.
9. No doubt Sections 147 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 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2022 20:04:40 :::CIS 6 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.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.
10. 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.
11. Offences in question, for material on record, do not fall in the category of offence termed to be prohibited, in terms of the pronouncements of Apex Court, to be compounded, exercising power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
12. Now, the matter has been amicably settled between the private parties on the basis of compromise arrived at between them, as such, I am of the considered view that no fruitful purpose shall be served to continue the proceedings against petitioner.
13. 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 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2022 20:04:40 :::CIS 7 and FIR No.55 of 2014, dated 02.05.2014, registered in Police Station Theog, District Shimla, H.P., is quashed. Consequent to quashing of FIR, criminal proceedings initiated against .
petitioners-accused persons in pursuance thereto, pending before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimla, H.P., are also quashed.
14. Petition stands disposed of in above terms.
15. Private parties are permitted to produce a copy of this order, downloaded from the web-page of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, before the trial Court/authorities concerned, and the said Court/authorities shall not insist for production of a certified copy but if required, may verify it from Website of the High Court.
(Vivek Singh Thakur), Judge.
April 13, 2022 (Purohit) ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2022 20:04:40 :::CIS