Himachal Pradesh High Court
Balbir Singh And Others vs State Of H.P. And Others on 30 June, 2023
Author: Virender Singh
Bench: Virender Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
.
CrMMO No. 644 of 2023
Decided on : 30.06.2023
Balbir Singh and others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of H.P. and others ...Respondents
Coram r to
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the petitioners: Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Suri, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Mohinder Zharaick, Mr. Tejasvi
Sharma and Mr. H.S. Rawat,
Additional Advocates General, with
Ms. Leena Guleria and Ms. Avni
Kochhar Mehta, Deputy Advocates
General, for respondents No. 1 to 3.
Mr. Sanjeev Singh, Advocate, for
respondent No. 4.
Virender Singh, Judge. (Oral)
Petitioners have filed the present petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'CrPC'), for quashing FIR No. 69 of 2016, dated 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2023 20:32:46 :::CIS 221st June, 2016, registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 201 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to .
as the 'IPC'), with Police Station Bangana, District Una, H.P., and the resultant proceedings thereto, i.e. Case No. 9 of 2016, pending before the Court of learned Special Judge, Una, District Una, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the 'trial Court'), on the basis of the compromise arrived at between the parties.
2. According to the applicants, respondent No. 4 has lodged FIR No. 69 of 2016 against them, in the heat of passion and due to some misunderstanding.
3. After the registration of the FIR, the police machinery swung into motion. After completion of the investigation, the report, under Section 173(2) CrPC, for the commission of the offences, as mentioned above, has been filed in the learned trial Court and case bearing No. 9 of 2016 is pending adjudication.
4. It is their further case that the petitioners, as well as, respondent No. 4 are resident of the same village and with the intervention of the respectables of the society and families, both the parties have settled the matter amicably. The ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2023 20:32:46 :::CIS 3 compromise deed has also been annexed with the petition, as Annexure P-2.
.
5. The compromise is stated to have been entered into between the parties, after clearing all the misunderstandings between the parties and in order to maintain cordial future relations between the petitioners and respondent No. 4.
6. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to allow the petition and to quash FIR No. 69 of 2016, as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, which are stated to be pending in the learned trial Court.
7. On notice, although, respondents No. 1 to 3 (State) have contested the petition, but, reply to the same has not been filed. It has been submitted by the learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the respondents No. 1 to 3- State that the offence committed, in this case, is not against the individual, but, against the society, at large. Hence, a prayer has been made to dismiss the petition.
8. Today, respondent No. 4, who has put the criminal machinery into motion, by making the statement, under Section 154 CrPC, appeared before this Court and deposed, on ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2023 20:32:46 :::CIS 4 oath, that she has lodged the FIR against the petitioners, on account of some misunderstanding. Now, with the .
intervention of the respectables, the matter has been compromised with the petitioners. The compromise has been entered into between them, in order to live peacefully, when all the misunderstandings have been cleared.
9. Respondent No. 4 has re-iterated that she and the petitioners are resident of the same village. Lastly, she has deposed that she has no objection, in case, the petition is allowed and the FIR in question and the consequential proceedings, pending in the learned trial Court, are quashed.
10. Similar type of statement has jointly been made by the petitioners.
11. Heard.
12. During the course of arguments, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, as well as, respondent No. 4, have pointed out that by way of CrMMO No. 642 of 2023, involving FIR No. 68 of 2016, which has been registered, at the instance of petitioner No. 4, against respondent No. 4- Neelam Kumari and her relatives, is also pending adjudication, before this Court, wherein FIR No. 68 of 2016, dated 21 st June, 2016, ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2023 20:32:46 :::CIS 5 registered under Sections 147, 149, 451, 323, 504 IPC and Section Section 3 (1)(x) of the SC&ST Act, with Police Station .
Bangana and the resultant proceedings thereto, which are stated to be pending, vide Case No. 8 of 2016, in the learned trial Court, have been sought to be quashed.
13. The petitioners and respondent No. 4 are resident of the same village. Considering their stand, this Court is of the view that the misunderstandings between the petitioners and respondent No. 4 seem to have been cleared. In order to maintain their future cordial relations, they have entered into a compromise, which is on the file, as Annexure P-2.
14. The primary purpose of the law is to maintain peace and harmony in the society. When the parties, without any pressure and out of their free will, have entered into the compromise, to settle all the disputes. Considering the terms and conditions of the compromise, which is based upon the fact, that they are close friends and known to each other and have entered into the compromise, in order to maintain their cordial future relations, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case, where, this Court can exercise powers under Section 482 CrPC, to quash the FIR, as well as, the ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2023 20:32:46 :::CIS 6 proceedings resultant thereto. Moreover, permitting to continue such type of proceedings, would amount to abuse of .
the process of law.
15. The present case does not fall within the exception, as carved out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Narinder Singh and others versus State of Punjab and another, reported in (2014) 6 Supreme Court Cases 466, whereby the Hon'ble Supreme Court has formulated the guidelines for accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings.
16. Perusal of judgment, referred to above, clearly depicts that in para 29.1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has returned the findings that power conferred under Section 482 CrPC, is to be distinguished from the power, which lies in the Court, to compound the offences under Section 320 CrPC.
17. No doubt, under Section 482 CrPC, 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 in view of the guiding principles, as ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2023 20:32:46 :::CIS 7 decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Narinder Singh's case (supra). The relevant portion of the judgment is .
reproduced, as under:
29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising 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 the criminal proceedings:
29.1. 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 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.
29.2. 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 under Section 482 Cr.P.C the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.
29.3. 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.
::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2023 20:32:46 :::CIS 829.4. 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.
29.5. 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.
29.6. 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 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.
::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2023 20:32:46 :::CIS 929.7. 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 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".
18. Judging the facts and circumstances of the present case, in the light of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Narinder Singh's case (supra), this Court is satisfied that it is a fit case, where, the powers, under ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2023 20:32:46 :::CIS 10 Section 482 CrPC, should be exercised, to quash the FIR in question, as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto.
.
19. Even otherwise, when the petitioners and respondent No. 4 have also settled the dispute, with regard to FIR No. 69 of 2016, then, the chances of conviction of the petitioners, in the present case, are not so bright.
20. The acceptance of the compromise will not only save the valuable relationship between the petitioners and respondent No. 4, but, it will also encourage law and order in the society. Also, the learned trial Court, which is being presided over by a Senior Officer, of the rank of Sessions Judge, would be able to devote the valuable judicial time, for the decision of some other serious disputes, pending in the Court. In other words, it can be said that it will also save the valuable judicial time.
21. Considering all these facts, the petition is allowed and FIR No. 69 of 2016, dated 21st June, 2016, registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 201 IPC, with Police Station Bangana, District Una, H.P., and the resultant proceedings thereto, i.e. Case No. 9 of 2016, pending before the learned trial Court, are ordered to be quashed.
::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2023 20:32:46 :::CIS 1122. The compromise deed, Annexure P-2, and the statements of the parties, made today, in the Court, shall form .
part of the judgment.
23. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly.
( Virender Singh ) Judge June 30, 2023 ( rajni ) ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2023 20:32:46 :::CIS