Himachal Pradesh High Court
Gopal Dass And Others vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Another on 14 September, 2018
Author: Sanjay Karol
Bench: Sanjay Karol
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
Cr.MMO No.358 of 2018 .
Decided on : September 14, 2018 Gopal Dass and others .... Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another.
.... Respondents The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Acting Chief Justice . Whether approved for reporting? No 1 For the Petitioners : Mr. B.C. Negi, Senior Advocate with Mr. Maan Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Addl. A.G. and Ms. Svaneel Jaswal, Dy. A.G. for the State.
Mr. Nitin Thakur, Advocate for R-2.
Sanjay Karol, Acting Chief Justice (oral) The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Code') has been preferred by the petitioners for quashing of F.I.R. No.177 of 2013, dated 18.11.2013, registered at Police Station, Rampur Bushahr, District Shimla, under the provisions of Sections 457, 380, 34 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and further proceedings pending before the Court below.
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2018 22:59:36 :::HCHP 22. All the petitioners are seeking quashing of the said F.I.R. and further proceedings pending before the .
Court below for the reason that the dispute between the parties stand resolved.
3. It is submitted that the parties had business relations as the complainant Shri Sohan Lal (respondent No.2 herein) is running a Petrol Pump under licence from HPCL of which the petitioners are employees and due to some misunderstanding, complainant got registered the aforesaid FIR against the present petitioners.
4. The police after investigation presented Challan in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur Bushahr, District Shimla, H.P., which is now pending.
5. This petition stands filed on the premise that the matter stands compromised between the complainant (respondent No.2) and the petitioners vide Compromise Deed dated 24.6.2018 (Annexure P-3). It has specifically come in the compromise deed that the present FIR was lodged due to some misunderstanding.
6. Learned Additional Advocate General has no objection for quashing of the aforesaid FIR.
::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2018 22:59:36 :::HCHP 37. This is not such a case wherein the offences for which the petitioners have been charged can be .
stricto sensu held to be the offences against the State.
Even otherwise, once the complainant has got recorded his statement in the aforesaid terms, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and the continuation of the criminal case against the petitioners would put them to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to them by not quashing the criminal case.
8. 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 the Code. No doubt, under Section ::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2018 22:59:36 :::HCHP 4 482 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 ::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2018 22:59:36 :::HCHP 5 be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves. (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 ::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2018 22:59:36 :::HCHP 6 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 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.
::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2018 22:59:36 :::HCHP 7Similarly, 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 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."
9. 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 proceedings seeking quashment of the FIR and further proceedings pending before the Court below. Once the complainant, who is the affected person on account of this incident, does not want to hold the petitioners responsible, the quashing of such FIR and further proceedings pending before the Court below would definitely be to secure the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of process of the Court.
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.
::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2018 22:59:36 :::HCHP 810. 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 the F.I.R. No.177 of 2013, dated 18.11.2013, registered at Police Station, Rampur Bushahr, District Shimla, under the provisions of Sections 457, 380, 34 and 120-B of the Indian Penal quashed, the r to Code, is ordered to be quashed. Since the FIR has been proceedings pending before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur Bushahr, learned District Shimla, H.P., are thereby 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.
(Sanjay Karol), September 14, 2018 (KS) Acting Chief Justice ::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2018 22:59:36 :::HCHP