Compromised Inter se- No Fruitful Purpose to be served in Continuing the Criminal Proceedings: High Court of Shimla

 Hig h C o urt of H.P on 20 03 HCHP IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CrMMO No. 521 Decided on: March 19 2021 ________________________________________________________________ Rajesh Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others …Respondents ________________________________________________________________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma Judge. Whether approved for reporting1 ________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Vikas Rajput and Mr. Rohit Minhas Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar and Mr. Arvind Sharma Additional Advocates General with Mr. Kunal Thakur Deputy Advocate General for respondent No.1. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Advocate for respondents Nos. 2 to 4. _______________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma J.By way of instant petition filed under S.482 CrPC prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for quashing of FIR No. 171 dated 8.10.2020 registered at Police Station Indora District Kangra Himachal Pradesh under Ss. 279 337 and 304 IPC and S.187 of the Motor Vehicles Act on the basis of compromise arrived inter se parties Annexure P 2). 2. Precisely the facts of the case as emerge from the record are that on 7.10.2020 an army vehiclebeing driven by the petitioner hit the motor cycle being driven by one Shri Gagan Singhi.e. husband of respondent No.2 Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment . Hig h C o urt of H.P on 20 03 HCHP 2 and son of respondent No.4 as a consequence of which Gagan Singh sustained multiple injuries and later on succumbed to his injuries. Respondent No.3 Balraj Singh who was present on the spot on the date of alleged accident informed the police and thereafter on the basis of his statement recorded under S.154 CrPC FIR sought to be quashed in the instant petition. 3. Having taken note of the averments contained in the petition as well as compromise placed on record this Court while issuing notice on 20.2.2021 deemed it necessary to cause presence of the parties in the court especially respondents Nos. 2 to 4 so that factum with regard to correctness and genuineness of the compromise placed on record could be ascertained. Pursuant to order dated 20.2.2021 petitioner as well as respondents No. 2 to 4 have come present who are duly represented by Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Advocate. 4. Respondent No. 3 Balraj Singh at whose instance FIR sought to be quashed in the present proceedings came to be lodged states on oath that since respondents Nos. 2 and 4 namely Mohinder Kaur and Malkiyat Singh who are wife and father of the deceased who expired in the alleged accident have already entered into compromise with the petitioner and they do not want to prosecute the case further he shall have no objection in case prayer made in the instant petition is allowed and Hig h C o urt of H.P on 20 03 HCHP 3 petitioner is acquitted of the offences charged against him. His statement is taken on record. 5. Respondents No.2 and 4 namely Mohinder Kaur and Malkiyat Singh also state on oath that they of their own volition and without there being any external pressure have entered into compromise with the petitioner whereby both the parties have resolved to settle the dispute amicably inter se them. They further states that the petitioner took all possible care of the deceased after the alleged accident they shall have no objection in case prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for quashing of FIR in question is accepted. They have identified their signatures on the compromise. Their statements are taken on oath. 6. Mr. Kunal Thakur learned Deputy Advocate General having heard statement made by respondents Nos. 2 to 4 fairly states that since the complainant relatives of the deceased and the accused have entered into compromise no fruitful purpose would be served in case criminal proceedings against the accused are allowed to continue. He further states that otherwise also chances of conviction in the present case are bleak and remote on account of statements given by the complainant and the relatives of the deceased and as such respondent State shall Hig h C o urt of H.P on 20 03 HCHP 4 have no objection in case prayer made in the present petition is allowed. 7. The question which now needs consideration is whether FIR in question can be ordered to be quashed when Hon ble Apex Court in Narinder Singh and others versus State of Punjab and anotherwhereby the Hon’ble Apex Court has formulated guidelines for accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings. Perusal of judgment referred to above clearly depicts that in para 29.1 Hon’ble Apex Court has returned the findings that 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 criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable and where the Hig h C o urt of H.P on 20 03 HCHP 5 parties have settled the matter between themselves however this power is to be exercised sparingly and with great caution. Para Nos. 29 to 29.7 of the judgment are 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: ends of justice or 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. 29.4. 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 Hig h C o urt of H.P on 20 03 HCHP 6 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. 29.7. 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 Hig h C o urt of H.P on 20 03 HCHP 7 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. Careful perusal of para 29.3 of the judgment suggests that such a power is not to be exercised in the cases 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. Apart from this offences 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. On the other hand those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character particularly arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes may be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves. 10. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and anr.10 SCC 303 has held that power of the High Court in quashing of the criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent power is distinct and Hig h C o urt of H.P on 20 03 HCHP 8 different from the power of a Criminal Court for compounding offences under Section 320 Cr.PC. Even in the judgment passed in Narinder Singh’s case the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that while exercising inherent power of quashment under Section 482 Cr.PC the Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime and its social impact and it cautioned the Courts not to exercise the power for quashing proceedings in heinous and serious offences of mental depravity murder rape dacoity etc. However subsequently the Hon’ble Apex Court in Dimpey Gujral and Ors. vs. Union Territory through Administrator UT Chandigarh and Ors.10 SCC 303 considered the relevant provisions of the Code and the judgments of this court and concluded as under:61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz to secure the ends of justice orto prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and Hig h C o urt of H.P on 20 03 HCHP 9 circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However before exercise of such power the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder rape dacoity etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim’s family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing particularly the offences arising from commercial financial mercantile civil partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view because of the compromise between the offender and victim the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.”8. In the light of the above observations of this court in Gian Singh we feel that this is a case where the continuation of criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law because the alleged offences are not heinous offences showing extreme depravity nor are they against the society. They are offences of a personal nature and burying them would bring about peace and amity between the two sides. In the circumstances of the case FIR No. 163 dated 26.10.2006 registered under Section 147 148 149 323 307 452 and 506 of the IPC at Police Station Sector 3 Chandigarh and all consequential proceedings arising there from including the final report presented under Section 173 of the Code and charges framed by the trial Court are hereby quashed.” Hig h C o urt of H.P on 20 03 HCHP 10 11. Recently the Hon’ble Apex Court in its latest judgment dated 4th October 2017 titled as Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others versus State of Gujarat and Another passed in Criminal Appeal No.17217 arising out of SLP(Crl) No.95416 reiterated the principles parameters laid down in Narinder Singh’s case supra for accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings. It would be profitable to reproduce para No. 13 to 15 of the judgment herein: “13. The same principle was followed in Central Bureau of Investigation v. Maninder Singhobserved that the case involved allegations of forgery of documents to embezzle the funds of the bank. In such a situation the fact that the dispute had been settled with the bank would not justify a recourse to thepower under Section 482: “…In economic offences Court must not only keep in view that money has been paid to the bank which has been defrauded but also the society at large. It is not a case of simple assault or a theft of a trivial amount but the offence with which we are concerned is well planned and was committed with a deliberate design with an eye of personal profit regardless of consequence to the society at large. To quash the proceeding merely on the ground that the accused has settled the amount with the bank would be a misplaced sympathy. If the prosecution against the economic offenders are not allowed to continue the entire community is aggrieved." 14. In a subsequent decision in State of Tamil Nadu v R Vasanthi Stanley1 SCC 376 the court rejected the submission that the first respondent was a woman “who was following the command of her husband” and had signed certain documents without being aware of the nature of the fraud which was being Hig h C o urt of H.P on 20 03 HCHP 11 perpetrated on the bank. Rejecting the submission this Court held that: “... Lack of awareness knowledge or intent is neither to be considered nor accepted in economic offences. The submission assiduously presented on gender leaves us unimpressed. An offence under the criminal law is an offence and it does not depend upon the gender of an accused. True it is there are certain provisions in Code of Criminal Procedure relating to exercise of jurisdiction Under Section 437 etc. therein but that altogether pertains to a different sphere. A person committing a murder or getting involved in a financial scam or forgery of documents cannot claim discharge or acquittal on the ground of her gender as that is neither constitutionally nor statutorily a valid argument. The offence is gender neutral in this case. We say no more on this score…” “…A grave criminal offence or serious economic offence or for that matter the offence that has the potentiality to create a dent in the financial health of the institutions is not to be quashed on the ground that there is delay in trial or the principle that when the matter has been settled it should be quashed to avoid the load on the system…” 15. The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject may be summarized in the following propositions: Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognizes and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a First Information Report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non compoundable. In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised to secure the ends of justice orto prevent an abuse of the process of any court The decision as to whether a complaint or First Information Report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated Hig h C o urt of H.P on 20 03 HCHP 12 vi) In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are truly speaking not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences As distinguished from serious offences there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing in so far as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial financial mercantile partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute In such a case the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice andThere is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositionsandabove. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well being of the state have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance.” 12. In the case at hand also offences alleged to have been committed by the accused do not involve offences of moral turpitude or any grave heinous crime as such this court deems it appropriate to quash the FIR as well as consequential proceedings thereto especially keeping in view the fact that the complainant relatives of the deceased and accused have compromised the matter inter se them in which case possibility Hig h C o urt of H.P on 20 03 HCHP 13 of conviction is remote and no fruitful purpose would be served in continuing with the criminal proceedings. 13. Since the matter stands compromised between the parties and the complainant as also the relatives of the deceased are no more interested in pursuing the criminal proceedings against the accused no fruitful purpose would be served in case proceedings initiated at the behest of the complainant are allowed to continue as such prayer made in the petition at hand can be accepted. 14. Consequently in view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex CourtFIR No. 171 dated 8.10.2020 registered at Police Station Indora District Kangra Himachal Pradesh under Ss. 279 337 and 304 IPC and S.187 of the Motor Vehicles Act as well as consequent proceedings if any are quashed and set aside. Petitioner is acquitted of the charges framed against him in the said FIR proceedings. 15. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms alongwith all pending applications. Judge March 19 2021

Summary: Keeping in view that the matter compromised inter-se them, the possibility of conviction is remote and no fruitful purpose would be served in continuing with the criminal proceedings. This honorable judgement was passed by High Court of Shimla in the case of Rajesh Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others [CrMMO No. 59 of 202] by the Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma. The petition was filed under S.482 CrPC, on behalf of the petitioner for quashing of FIR, registered at Police Station Indora, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, under Ss. 279, 337 and 304 IPC and S.187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, on the basis of compromise arrived inter se parties. An army vehicle (Jipsy) being driven by the petitioner, hit the motor cycle being driven by deceased and   his son as a consequence of which, on the basis of his statement recorded, so that factum with regard to correctness and genuineness of the compromise placed on and also stated on oath that, whereby both the parties had resolved to settle the dispute amicably inter-se them. The petitioner took all possible care of the deceased after the alleged accident, they shall have no objection. The councel referred the case of Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another has specifically held that power under S. 482 CrPC is not to be exercised in the cases which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, etc and in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and anr. the court held that power of the High Court in quashing of the criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent power is distinct and in Narinder Singh’s case, the court held that while exercising inherent power of quashment under Section 482 Cr.PC the Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime and its social impact and it cautioned the Courts not to exercise the power for quashing proceedings in heinous and serious offences of mental depravity, murder, rape, dacoity etc. The court opinioned that, ‘offences alleged to have been committed by the accused do not involve offences of moral turpitude or any grave/heinous crime, as such, this court deems it appropriate to quash the FIR as well as consequential proceedings thereto, especially keeping in view the fact that the complainant, relatives of the deceased and accused have compromised the matter inter se them, in which case, possibility of conviction is remote and no fruitful purpose would be served in continuing with the criminal proceedings.’