Himachal Pradesh High Court

Jagjit Singh And Others vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others on 29 May, 2015

Author:
Tarlok Singh Chauhan

Bench:
Tarlok Singh Chauhan

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

.

Cr.MMO No.152 of 2015.

Date of decision: 29.05.2015.

Jagjit Singh and others .....Petitioners.

Versus

State of Himachal Pradesh and others ..... Respondents.

Coram

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?1No
For the Petitioners : Mr.Dheeraj K.Vashisht, Advocate.

For the Respondents : Mr.Virender Kumar Verma,
Ms.Meenakshi Sharma, Mr.Rupinder
Singh, Additional Advocate Generals

and Ms.Parul Negi, Deputy Advocate
General, for respondent No.1.

Mr. Devender K.Sharma, Advocate,
for respondents No.2 and 3.

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (Oral).

This petition under
Section 482
of the Code of Criminal

Procedure has been moved by the petitioners for quashing of FIR

No.51/13 dated 06.06.2013, registered at Police Station, Gagret, District

Una, under
Sections 341
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
, IPC and

proceedings pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Court No.II,

Amb, District Una.

2. The facts in brief are that on 06.06.2013 Ravi Kumar Sharda

son of Shri Ram Parkash lodged an FIR No.51/13 against the petitioners at

Police Station, Gagret, Tehsil Amb, District Una, under Sections

Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes

::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:17:24 :::HCHP
147,148,149, 205, 323, 341, 427, 506
IPC
and further the police forwarded

the challan to Court and the case is pending before Judicial Magistrate Ist

.

Class, Court No.II, Amb, District Una,H.P.

3. Similarly, petitioners filed a complaint against respondents

No.2, 3 and others upon which FIR No.107/13 dated 06.08.2013 under

Sections 323
,
,
IPC at Police Station, Gagret, District Una, was

lodged and thereafter police forwarded the challan to Court and the case

titled 'State Versus Ravi Kumar and others' is pending before the Court of

Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Court No.II, Amb, District Una.

4. It is stated in the compromise deeds that the parties are

inhabitants of District Una and used to live in same area. Further it is

stated that the parties have amicably settled the matter and now they do

not want to purse the cases against each other. The compromise deeds

Annexure P-3 and P-4 are placed on record to this effect.

5. Today, the petitioner s and respondents No.2 and 3 are

present in the Court and identified as such by their respective counsels. It

is stated by learned counsel for the parties that the parties have amicably

settled the matter and now they do not want to purse their cases against

each others in order to have cordial relations between them. They have

also placed on record the compromise deed.

6. The moot question is whether the Court in such like cases can

quash the proceedings. The law on this subject has been summed up in a

recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Narinder Singh & Ors.

V. State of Punjab & Anr. JT 2014 (4) SC 573, wherein it was held as

under:

"(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 482

of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal

::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:17:24 :::HCHP
proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where
the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However,

.

this power is t 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 of 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 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

::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:17:24 :::HCHP
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.

(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. 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."

7. It would be seen that prior to Narinder Singh's case (supra),

a three Hon'ble Judges Bench had considered the relevant scope of

Sections 482
and
Cr.P.C. in
Gian Singh versus State of Punjab and

another
(2012) 10 SCC 303 wherein it was held that power of the High

Court in quashing of the criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint in

::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:17:24 :::HCHP
exercise of its inherent power is distinct and different from the power of a

Criminal Court for compounding offences under
Section 320
Cr.P.C. While

.

exercising inherent power of quashment under
Section 482
Cr.P.C., the

Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime and its

social impact. It warned the Courts, the High Court for quashing

proceedings in heinous and serious offences of mental depravity, murder,

rape, dacoity etc. which principles have been reported and reaffirmed in

Narinder Singh
's case (supra).

8. Now the further question remains whether this Court can

quash proceedings where the petitioner s, on the one hand, have been

charged under
Sections 341
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
, IPC, while

on the other hand, respondents No.2, 3 and others have been charged

under
Sections 323
,
,
IPC. This question need not detain this Court

any longer in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Dimpey Gujral, W/o
Vivek Gujral and others versus Union Territory

through Administrator, UT, Chandigarh and others (2013) 11 SCC 497

where the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case seeking quashment of FIR

and its consequential proceedings involving
Sections 147
,
,
,
,
,
and
IPC after relying upon the judgment of Gian Singh's

case (supra) held as follows:-

"7. In certain decisions of this court in view of the settlement arrived at
by the parties, this court quashed the FIRs though some of the
offences were non-compoundable. A two Judges' Bench of this court
doubted the correctness of those decisions. Learned Judges felt that
in those decisions, this court had permitted compounding of non-
compoundable offences. The said issue was, therefore, referred to a
larger bench.

The larger Bench in
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab
(2012) 10 SCC
303 considered the relevant provisions of the Code and the

::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:17:24 :::HCHP
judgments of this court and concluded as under: (SCC pp.342-43,
para 61)

.

"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; (i) to secure
the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of
any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal
r 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 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, the
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

::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:17:24 :::HCHP
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."

(emphasis supplied)

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
,
,
,
,
,
and
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."

9. On the basis of the aforesaid exposition of law, this Court is of

the opinion that this is a case where the continuation of the criminal

proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law because the

alleged offences are not heinous offences showing extreme depravity nor

are they strictly against the society. They are offences of personal nature

and quashing the proceedings would bring about peace and amity

between two sides.

10. In these circumstances, FIR No.51/13 dated 06.06.2013,

registered at Police Station, Gagret, District Una, under
Sections 341
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
, IPC at the instance of respondents No.2 and

3 herein against the petitioners and proceedings pending before the

::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:17:24 :::HCHP
learned Judicial Magistrate, Court No.II, Amb, District Una, against the

petitioners, are quashed. Similarly, FIR No.107/13 dated 06.08.2013

.

under
Sections 323
,
,
IPC registered at Police Station, Gagret,

District Una, at the instance of petitioners herein against respondents No.2

and 3 and proceedings pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist

Class, Court No.II, Amb, District Una, against respondents No.2 and 3 are

also quashed.

11. The petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending

application also stands disposed of.

May 29, 2015. (Tarlok Singh Chauhan),
(krt) Judge.

::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:17:24 :::HCHP