Compromise Deed- No further Proceedings to be Conducted: High Court of Shimla

 Hig h C o urt of H.P on 20 03 HCHP 1IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLACr. MMO No. 1421Decided on: 19.03.2021 _________________________________________________________Rohit Kumar & anr. …..PetitionersVersusState of H.P. and anr. Respondents_______________________________________________________________CoramThe Hon ble Mr. Justice Chander Bhusan Barowalia Judge.1 Whether approved for reporting Yes. For the petitioners: Ms. Leena Guleria Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. S.C. Sharma and Mr. P.K. Bhatti Addl. AGs for respondentNo. 1. Mr. Lalit K. Sehgal Advocate for respondent No. 2. ____________________________________________________________Chander Bhusan Barowalia JudgeThe instant petition under Section 482 of theCode of Criminal Procedurehas been maintained by the petitioners for quashingof F.I.R No. 360 dated 26.09.2020 under Sections 324 323 504 and 34 of the Indian Penal Coderegistered at Police Station Sadar Una District Una H.P. alongwith all consequent proceedings arising out of thesaid F.I.R. pending before the learned trial Court.2.Briefly stating the facts giving rise to the presentpetition are that on 26.09.2020 the complainantmade a complaint to the police wherein it hasbeen alleged that the accused persons are his brothers and heis living separately from them but on one pretext or the otherhis brothers keep harassing his family and today they madeallegations against his wife that she took their 700 Rupees.As per the complainant the petitioners also abused his wifeand when he reached at the spot and asked what is going on the petitioners attacked him with “Darat” owing to which hesustained injuries. On the complaint of complainant F.I.R No.360 dated 26.09.2020 under Sections 324 323 504 and 34of IPC came to be registered against the petitioners.However now the parties have compromised the matter andin order to maintain their relations cordial they do not want topursue the case against each other. Hence the presentpetition. 3.Ms. Leena Guleria learned counsel for thepetitioners has argued that as the parties have compromisedthe matter vide Compromise Deednopurpose will be served by keeping the proceedings alive hence the FIR alongwith consequent proceedings arising outof the same pending before the learned trial Court may bequashed and set aside. 4.Mr. Lalit K. Sehgal learned counsel appearing onbehalf of respondent No. 2 has argued that the present Hig h C o urt of H.P on 20 03 HCHP 3petition may be allowed in view of the compromise arrived atbetween the parties.5.Learned Additional Advocate General has arguedthat taking into consideration the offence committed by thepetitioners the present petition deserves dismissal. 6.To appreciate the arguments of learned counselappearing on behalf of the parties I have gone through theentire record in detail.7. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme CourtB.S. Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana and another4 SCC 675 have held that if for the purpose ofsecuring the ends of justice quashing of FIR becomesnecessary section 320 would not be a bar to the exercise ofpower of quashing. It is well settled that the powers undersection 482 have no limits. Of course where there is morepower it becomes necessary to exercise utmost care andcaution while invoking such powers. Their Lordships have heldas under:[6] In Pepsi Food Ltd. and another v. Special JudicialMagistrate and others5 SCC 749) this Courtwith reference to Bhajan Lal s case observed that theguidelines laid therein as to where the Court willexercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Codecould not be inflexible or laying rigid formulae to befollowed by the Courts. Exercise of such power woulddepend upon the facts and circumstances of eachcase but with the sole purpose to prevent abuse ofthe process of any Court or otherwise to secure theends of justice. It is well settled that these powershave no limits. Of course where there is morepower it becomes necessary to exercise utmost care Hig h C o urt of H.P on 20 03 HCHP 4and caution while invoking such powers.[8] It is thus clear that Madhu Limaye s casedoes not lay down any general proposition limitingpower of quashing the criminal proceedings or FIR orcomplaint as vested in Section 482 of the Code orextraordinary power under Article 226 of theConstitution of India. We are therefore of the viewthat if for the purpose of securing the ends ofjustice quashing of FIR becomes necessary Section320 would not be a bar to the exercise of power ofquashing. It is however a different matterdepending upon the facts and circumstances of eachcase whether to exercise or not such a power.[15] In view of the above discussion we hold thatthe High Court in exercise of its inherent powers canquash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint andSection 320 of the Code does not limit or affect thepowers under Section 482 of the Code.8. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court inPreeti Gupta and another vs. State of Jharkhand andanother 7 SCC 667 have held that the ultimateobject of justice is to find out the truth and punish the guiltyand protect the innocent. The tendency of implicating thehusband and all his immediate relations is also notuncommon. At times even after the conclusion of the criminaltrial it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. Experiencereveals that long and protracted criminal trials lead torancour acrimony and bitterness in the relationship amongstthe parties. The criminal trials lead to immense sufferings forall concerned. Their Lordships have further held thatpermitting complainant to pursue complaint would be abuseof process of law and the complaint against the appellantswas quashed. Their Lordships have held as under: Hig h C o urt of H.P on 20 03 HCHP 5[27] A three Judge Benchof thisCourt in Inder Mohan Goswami and Another v. Stateof Uttaranchal & Others 2007 12 SCC 1comprehensively examined the legal position. Thecourt came to a definite conclusion and the relevantobservations of the court are reproduced in para 24of the said judgment as under: "Inherent powers under section 482 Cr.P.C.though wide have to be exercised sparingly carefully and with great caution and only when suchexercise is justified by the tests specifically laiddown in this section itself. Authority of the courtexists for the advancement of justice. If any abuseof the process leading to injustice is brought to thenotice of the court then the Court would bejustified in preventing injustice by invokinginherent powers in absence of specific provisions inthe Statute."[28] We have very carefully considered theaverments of the complaint and the statements ofall the witnesses recorded at the time of the filingof the complaint. There are no specific allegationsagainst the appellants in the complaint and none ofthe witnesses have alleged any role of both theappellants.[35] The ultimate object of justice is to find outthe truth and punish the guilty and protect theinnocent. To find out the truth is a herculean task inmajority of these complaints. The tendency ofimplicating husband and all his immediate relationsis also not uncommon. At times even after theconclusion of criminal trial it is difficult to ascertainthe real truth. The courts have to be extremelycareful and cautious in dealing with thesecomplaints and must take pragmatic realities intoconsideration while dealing with matrimonial cases.The allegations of harassment of husband s closerelations who had been living in different cities andnever visited or rarely visited the place where thecomplainant resided would have an entirelydifferent complexion. The allegations of thecomplaint are required to be scrutinized with greatcare and circumspection. 36. Experience reveals that long and protractedcriminal trials lead to rancour acrimony andbitterness in the relationship amongst the parties.It is also a matter of common knowledge that incases filed by the complainant if the husband or thehusband s relations had to remain in jail even for afew days it would ruin the chances of amicablesettlement altogether. The process of suffering isextremely long and painful.[38] The criminal trials lead to immensesufferings for all concerned. Even ultimate acquittalin the trial may also not be able to wipe out the Hig h C o urt of H.P on 20 03 HCHP 6deep scars of suffering of ignominy. Unfortunately alarge number of these complaints have not onlyflooded the courts but also have led to enormoussocial unrest affecting peace harmony andhappiness of the society. It is high time that thelegislature must take into consideration thepragmatic realities and make suitable changes inthe existing law. It is imperative for the legislatureto take into consideration the informed publicopinion and the pragmatic realities in considerationand make necessary changes in the relevantprovisions of law. We direct the Registry to send acopy of this judgment to the Law Commission andto the Union Law Secretary Government of Indiawho may place it before the Hon ble Minister forLaw & Justice to take appropriate steps in the largerinterest of the society.9.Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court inJitendra Raghuvanshi and others vs. BabitaRaghuvanshi and another 4 SCC 58 have held thatcriminal proceedings or FIR or complaint can be quashedunder section 482 Cr.P.C. in appropriate cases in order to meetends of justice. Even in non compoundable offences pertainingto matrimonial disputes if court is satisfied that parties havesettled the disputes amicably and without any pressure thenfor purpose of securing ends of justice FIR or complaint orsubsequent criminal proceedings in respect of offences can bequashed. Their Lordships have held as under:[13] As stated earlier it is not in dispute thatafter filing of a complaint in respect of the offencespunishable under Sections 498A and 406 of IPC theparties in the instant case arrived at a mutualsettlement and the complainant also has sworn anaffidavit supporting the stand of the appellants.That was the position before the trial Court as wellas before the High Court in a petition filed underSection 482 of the Code. A perusal of the impugnedorder of the High Court shows that because themutual settlement arrived at between the parties Hig h C o urt of H.P on 20 03 HCHP 7relate to non compoundable offence the courtproceeded on a wrong premise that it cannot becompounded and dismissed the petition filed underSection 482. A perusal of the petition before theHigh Court shows that the application filed by theappellants was not for compounding of non compoundable offences but for the purpose ofquashing the criminal proceedings.[14] The inherent powers of the High Court underSection 482 of the Code are wide and unfettered. InB.S. Joshi this Court has upheld the powers of theHigh Court under Section 482 to quash criminalproceedings where dispute is of a private natureand a compromise is entered into between theparties who are willing to settle their differencesamicably. We are satisfied that the said decision isdirectly applicable to the case on hand and the HighCourt ought to have quashed the criminalproceedings by accepting the settlement arrived at.[15] In our view it is the duty of the courts toencourage genuine settlements of matrimonialdisputes particularly when the same are onconsiderable increase. Even if the offences are non compoundable if they relate to matrimonialdisputes and the court is satisfied that the partieshave settled the same amicably and without anypressure we hold that for the purpose of securingends of justice Section 320 of the Code would notbe a bar to the exercise of power of quashing ofFIR complaint or the subsequent criminalproceedings.[16] There has been an outburst of matrimonialdisputes in recent times. The institution of marriageoccupies an important place and it has an importantrole to play in the society. Therefore every effortshould be made in the interest of the individuals inorder to enable them to settle down in life and livepeacefully. If the parties ponder over their defaultsand terminate their disputes amicably by mutualagreement instead of fighting it out in a court oflaw in order to do complete justice in thematrimonial matters the courts should be lesshesitant in exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction.It is trite to state that the power under Section 482should be exercised sparingly and withcircumspection only when the court is convinced onthe basis of material on record that allowing theproceedings to continue would be an abuse of theprocess of the court or that the ends of justicerequire that the proceedings ought to be quashed.We also make it clear that exercise of such powerwould depend upon the facts and circumstances ofeach case and it has to be exercised in appropriatecases in order to do real and substantial justice forthe administration of which alone the courts exist.It is the duty of the courts to encourage genuine Hig h C o urt of H.P on 20 03 HCHP 8settlements of matrimonial disputes and Section482 of the Code enables the High Court and Article142 of the Constitution enables this Court to passsuch orders.[17] In the light of the above discussion we holdthat the High Court in exercise of its inherentpowers can quash the criminal proceedings or FIRor complaint in appropriate cases in order to meetthe ends of justice and Section 320 of the Codedoes not limit or affect the powers of the High Courtunder Section 482 of the Code. Under thesecircumstances we set aside the impugnedjudgment of the High Court dated 04.07.2012passed in M.C.R.C. No. 28712 and quash theproceedings in Criminal Case No. 41611pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate Class I Indore.”10.Similarly Hon’ble Supreme Court in ParbatbhaiAahir alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and othersvs. State of Gujarat and another 9 SupremeCourt Cases 641 wherein it has been held as under :“16.The broad principles which emerge from theprecedents on the subject may be summarised inthe following propositions: 16.1. Section 482 preserves the inherent powers ofthe High Court to prevent an abuse of the processof any court or to secure the ends of justice. Theprovision does not confer new powers. It onlyrecognises and preserves powers which inhere inthe High Court 16.2. The invocation of the jurisdiction of the HighCourt to quash a First Information Report or acriminal proceeding on the ground that asettlement has been arrived at between theoffender and the victim is not the same as theinvocation of jurisdiction for the purpose ofcompounding an offence. While compounding anoffence the power of the court is governed by theprovisions of Section 320 of the Code of CriminalProcedure 1973. The power to quash underSection 482 is attracted even if the offence is non compoundable.16.3. In forming an opinion whether a criminalproceeding or complaint should be quashed inexercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 theHigh Court must evaluate whether the ends ofjustice would justify the exercise of the inherentpower 16.4 While the inherent power of the High Court Hig h C o urt of H.P on 20 03 HCHP 9has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to beexercised to secure the ends of justice ortoprevent an abuse of the process of any court 16.5 The decision as to whether a complaint orFirst Information Report should be quashed on theground that the offender and victim have settledthe dispute revolves ultimately on the facts andcircumstances of each case and no exhaustiveelaboration of principles can be formulated 16.6. In the exercise of the power under Section482 and while dealing with a plea that the disputehas been settled the High Court must have dueregard to the nature and gravity of the offence.Heinous and serious offences involving mentaldepravity or offences such as murder rape anddacoity cannot appropriately be quashed thoughthe victim or the family of the victim have settledthe dispute. Such offences are truly speaking notprivate in nature but have a serious impact uponsociety. The decision to continue with the trial insuch cases is founded on the overriding element ofpublic interest in punishing persons for seriousoffences 16.7. As distinguished from serious offences theremay be criminal cases which have anoverwhelming or predominant element of a civildispute. They stand on a distinct footing in so faras the exercise of the inherent power to quash isconcerned 16.8. Criminal cases involving offences which arisefrom commercial financial mercantile partnershipor similar transactions with an essentially civilflavour may in appropriate situations fall forquashing where parties have settled the dispute 16.9 In such a case the High Court may quash thecriminal proceeding if in view of the compromisebetween the disputants the possibility of aconviction is remote and the continuation of acriminal proceeding would cause oppression andprejudice and16.10. There is yet an exception to the principleset out in propositions 16.8 and 16.9 above.Economic offences involving the financial andeconomic well being of the state have implicationswhich lie beyond the domain of a mere disputebetween private disputants. The High Court wouldbe justified in declining to quash where theoffender is involved in an activity akin to afinancial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. Theconsequences of the act complained of upon thefinancial or economic system will weigh in thebalance.Even if the trial is allowed to be continued as theparties have compromised the matter there are bleak chances Hig h C o urt of H.P on 20 03 HCHP 10of conviction to secure the ends of justice. 11.Thus taking into consideration the law as discussedhereinabove and the the fact that the parties have arrived atcompromise vide Compromise Deedand do notwant to proceed further with the case in order to maintain theirrelations cordial I find that the interest of justice would be met in case the proceedings are quashed.12.Accordingly looking into all attending facts andcircumstances this Court finds that present is a fit case toexercise jurisdiction vested in this Court under Section 482 ofthe Code and therefore the present petition is allowed and F.I.RNo. 360 dated 26.09.2020 under Sections 324 323 504 and 34of IPC registered at Police Station Sadar Una District Una H.P. is ordered to be quashed. Since F.I.R No. 360 dated 26.09.2020 under the aforesaid Sections has been quashed consequentproceedings arising out of the said F.I.R. pending before thelearned trial Court are thereby rendered infructuous. 13. The petition is accordingly disposed of alongwithpending applications if any. 

Summary: If the parties had compromised the matter vide Compromise Deed, then no purpose would be served by keeping the proceedings alive. This remarkable judgement was passed by High Court of Shimla in the case of Rohit Kumar &amp; anr. v. State of H.P. and anr. [Cr. MMO No. 143 of 2021] by The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Chander Bhusan Barowalia. The petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had been maintained by the petitioners for quashing of F.I.R No. 360, dated 26.09.2020, under Sections 324, 323, 504 and 34 of the Indian Penal registered at Police Station Sadar-Una, District Una, H.P., the complainant, wherein that the accused persons are his brothers and he was living separately from them, but on one pretext or the other his brothers keep harassing his family, they made allegations against his wife that she took their 700/- Rupees. The petitioners also abused his wife and when he reached at the spot and asked what is going on, the petitioners attacked him with “Darat”, owing to which, he sustained injuries. However, now the parties had compromised the matter and in order to maintain their relations cordial, they do not want to pursue the case against each other. The petitioners had argued that as the parties had compromised the matter vide Compromise Deed, no purpose would be served by keeping the proceedings alive, hence, the FIR, along with consequent proceedings, may be quashed and set aside. The council referred the case of B.S. Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana and another, held that if for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necessary, section 320 would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing. In Preeti Gupta and another vs. State of Jharkhand and another, held that the ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent. In Jitendra Raghuvanshi and others vs. Babita Raghuvanshi and another, and in Parbatbhai Aahir alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others vs. State of Gujarat and another have held that criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint can be quashed under section 482 Cr.P.C. The court opinioned that, ‘the fact that the parties have arrived at compromise vide Compromise Deed and do not want to proceed further with the case in order to maintain their relations cordial, I find that the interest of justice would be met, in case, the proceedings are quashed.’