Himachal Pradesh High Court
Hari Krishan And Another vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Others on 6 August, 2019
Author: Vivek Singh Thakur
Bench: Vivek Singh Thakur
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr.MMO No. 313 of 2019
Date of decision: 6.8.2019
.
Hari Krishan and Another. ...Petitioners.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Others. ...Respondents
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the Petitioners: Mr.Rajesh Kumar Parmar, Advocate.
PetiotnersHari Krishan and Sandeep present in
r person.
For the Respondents: Mr.S.C. Sharma and Mr.Desh Raj Thakur,
Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr.R.P.
Singh, Deputy Advocate General, for
respondent No. 1-State.
Mr.Bhawani Pratap Singh, Advocate, for
respondents No. 2 and 3.
Respondents Prem Chand and Gurmail Singh
present in person.
ASI Babu Ram, I.O. Police Station Baddi,
present in person along with record.
Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge (oral)
The instant petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (herein after referred to as 'Cr.PC') has been filed by petitioners- accused, on the basis of compromise arrived at between them, complainant- respondent No. 2 and injured-respondent No. 3 for quashing FIR No. 57 of 2014, dated 22.2.2014, under Sections 326, 324, 341, 323, 34 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (herein after referred to as 'IPC') registered at Police Station Baddi, District Solan, H.P., and criminal proceedings initiated in pursuance thereto.
2. Respondent No. 2-complainant Sh. Prem Chand and respondent No. 3-injured Gurmail Singh are present in the Court today and endorsed compromise Annexure P-2, in their statements recorded on oath Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 01:50:04 :::HCHP 2 Cr. MMO No. 313 of 2019 in this Court. They deposed that they have forgiven petitioners for their acts, who are their nephews in relation. Petitioners/accused are also present in person. Their statements on oath have also been recorded, wherein they .
also endorsed compromise Annexure P-2 and also deposed that on the date of incident, altercation had taken place on political issue, which resulted in ugly incident, wherein they had retaliated to the slaps of their uncle and out of anger they hit him with danda. They further deposed that now they have repentance for their acts and have apologized for the incident and are living in harmonious atmosphere with cordial relations, as respondents (their uncles) have also pardoned them, therefore, they have amicably settled the dispute and other case pending before JMIC Nalagarh has also been closed on the basis of compromise. They have also stated that they have signed the compromise deed Annexure P-2 and also deposed before this Court out of their free will, consent and without any external pressure, coercion or threat.
3. ASI Babu Ram, I.O. Police Station Baddi is also present in Court and produced status report of case FIR No. 56 of 2014 and order passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Nalagarh, therein, which has also been placed on record by filing an application by the petitioners, according to which, the matter has been compromised between the parties.
4. It is contended on behalf of respondent No. 1-State that petitioner/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.P.C.
5. It is apt to record herein that a three Judges Bench of the Apex Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Others 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 ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 01:50:04 :::HCHP 3 Cr. MMO No. 313 of 2019 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 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.
6. The Apex Court in case Narinder Singh and Ors. 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.
7. No doubt Section 326 IPC is not compoundable under Section 320 Cr. P.C. However, as explained by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 01:50:04 :::HCHP 4 Cr. MMO No. 313 of 2019 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 it is 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.
8. In present case, complainant and injured have also appeared in person in this Court and their statements, as discussed in para 2 supra, have also been recorded in this Court, wherein they have expressed their desire to close the proceedings.
9. Offences in question, for material on record, 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 statement of respondent No. 3-complainant, recorded on oath in this Court, probability of conviction is too remote.
10. 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, FIR No. 57 of 2014, dated 22.2.2014, registered under Sections 326, 324, 341, 323, 34 and 201 IPC at Police Station, Baddi, District Solan, H.P. is quashed. Consequent to quashing of FIR, criminal proceedings in pursuance thereto, if any, also stand quashed.
11. Petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so also pending applications, if any.
Copy Dasti.
(Vivek Singh Thakur), th 6 August, 2019 Judge.
(Keshav) ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 01:50:04 :::HCHP