Himachal Pradesh High Court

Abhishek Sharma Son Sh vs State Of Punjab And Another (2014)6 ... on 20 October, 2022

Author:
Sandeep Sharma

Bench:
Sandeep Sharma

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

.
ON THE 20th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022

BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHARMA

CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION (MAIN) U/S 482 CRPC No. 736 of 2022

Between:

1. ABHISHEK SHARMA SON SH

VINOD SHARMA RESIDENT
OF VILLAGE SUNGERWER
POST OFFICE TIKKRI
MINHASAN TEHSI BHORANJ
DISTRICT HAMIRPUR, H.P.

AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS.

2. PARVEEN SON OF SH. DESH
RAJ RESIDENT OF VILLAGE
PANJWAIN POST OFFICE
DHIRWIN TEHSIL BHORANJ

DISTRICT HAMIRPUR H.P.
AGED 17 YEARS THROUGH
HIS MOTHER BEING
NATURAL GUARDIAN SMT.

SEEMA DEVI WIFE SH. DESH
RAJ RESIDENT OF VILLAGE

PANJWAIN POST OFFICE
DHIRWIN TEHSIL BHORANJ
DISTRICT HAMIRPUR, H.P.
AGED 37 YEARS.

3. UDYA SHARMA, SON OF SH.
VINOD SHARMA, RESIDENT
OF VILLAGE SUNGERWAR
POST OFFICE TIKKRI
MINHASAN TEHSIL BHORANJ
DISTRICT HAMIRPUR, H.P.
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS.

::: Downloaded on - 27/10/2022 20:31:53 :::CIS
4. VISHAL KUMAR SON OF SH.

.
KAMLAJEET SHARMA

RESIDENT OF WARD NO. 5
VILLAGE BHAIR POST OFFICE
MEHAL TEHSIL BHORANJ
DISTRICT HAMIRPUR H.P.

AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS.

5. PARVEEN KUMAR SON OF
LATE SH. HEM RAJ
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE

SADHRIAN POST OFFICE
TARKWARI TEHSIL BHORANJ
DISTRICT HAMIRPUR H.P.
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS.
....PETITIONERS

(MR. DEVENDER K. SHARMA,

ADVOCATE)

AND

1. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,
THROUGH SECRETARY (HOME) TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF
POLICE, MANDI, DISTRICT
MANDI, H.P.

3. STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
POLICE STATION BALH, TEHSIL
BALH, DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.

4. BHAVNESHWAR DUTT SON OF
SH MURLI DHAR RESIDENT OF
VILLAGE DHAR POST OFFICE
RIWALSAR SUB TEHSIL

::: Downloaded on - 27/10/2022 20:31:53 :::CIS
RIWALSAR TEHSIL BALH

.
DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.

....RESPONDENTS
(MR. NARENDER GULERIA,
ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE
GENERAL, WITH MR. SUNNY

DHATWALIA, ASSISTANT
ADVOCATE GENERAL, FOR
THE STATE)

(BY MR. MUKUL SOOD,

ADVOCATE, FOR R-4)

Whether approved for reporting?.
This petition coming on for orders this day, the Court passed the following:

ORDER

By way of instant petition, prayer has been made on behalf of

the petitioner for quashing of FIR No. 266 of 2021, dated 25.8.2021, under

Sections 379
,
and
of IPC, registered with Police Station Balh,

District Mandi, H.P., as well as consequent proceedings, if any, pending

before the court below, on the basis of compromise/amicable settlement

arrived inter-se parties.

2. Averments contained in the petition, which is duly supported

by an affidavit, reveal that FIR sought to be quashed in the instant

proceedings came to be lodged at the behest of the respondent No.4 Sh.

Bhavneshwar Dutt (herein after referred to as "the complainant"), who

alleged that on 1.7.2021, he had parked his motorcycle bearing registration

::: Downloaded on - 27/10/2022 20:31:53 :::CIS
No. HP 33C 7677 outside his house. He alleged that when on 2.7.2021, at

.

8:00am, he came outside his house, his motorcycle as detailed herein

above was missing. He alleged that on inquiry, he was informed that his

motorcycle is parked in the court yard of petitioner -Vishal. On the basis of

aforesaid complaint, police conducted investigation and found that

petitioner-accused Parveen Kumar had actually stolen motorcycle of

respondent No.2 alongwith other co-accused namely Abhishek Sharma and

Uday Sharma and thereafter, they had sold the same for sum of Rs.

8,000/- to petitioner accused No.4 Vishal Kumar. Petitioners No. 1 to 3

after having stolen the motorcycle changed its number plate with a view to

save themselves and put the number of scooter i.e. HP 74-2228 on the

motorcycle, however, police recovered the motorcycle and handed over the

same to the respondent and registered the case against all the petitioners.

Though after completion of investigation, police presented challan in the

competent court of law, but before same could be taken to its logical end,

parties have entered into compromise, whereby they have resolved to settle

their dispute amicably inter-se them. In the aforesaid background, all the

petitioners, who are students of ITI, Hamirpur, have approached this Court

for quashing of FIR as well as consequent proceedings pending in the

competent court of law.

::: Downloaded on - 27/10/2022 20:31:53 :::CIS
3. Vide order dated 10.8.2022, this Court while directing the

.

respondent -State to verify the factum with regard to compromise, if any,

arrived inter-se parties also deemed it necessary to cause presence of the

parties, especially respondent No.4, at whose instance FIR sought to be

quashed came to be instituted. Pursuant to aforesaid order, Mr. Narender

Guleria, learned Additional Advocate General has placed on record

communication dated respondent No.14.9.2022, received from

Superintendent of Police, Mandi, perusal whereof reveals that parties to the

lis have amicably settled the dispute inter-se them.

4. Respondent No. 4, who is present in the Court and duly

represented by Mr. Mukul Sood, Advocate, states oath that he of his own

volition and without there being any external pressure has entered into

compromise, whereby both the parties have resolved to settle their dispute

amicably. He states that since all the petitioners are well known to him, he

does not wish to prosecute the case further. He states that otherwise also,

entire career of the petitioners would be ruined in case they are convicted

in the criminal proceedings initiated at his behest. He states that since all

the petitioners have already apologized for their misconduct and have

undertaken not to repeat such act in future, he shall have no objection in

case prayer made by the petitioners for quashing of FIR is accepted.

::: Downloaded on - 27/10/2022 20:31:53 :::CIS
Respondent No. 4 while admitting the contents of the compromise also

.

admits the signatures on the same. Such statement made on oath is taken

on record.

5. Mr. Narender Guleria, learned Additional Advocate General,

having heard aforesaid statement made by respondent No.4 states that in

view of the amicable settlement arrived inter-se parties, no fruitful purpose

would be served in case FIR sought to be quashed as well as consequent

proceedings pending before the court below are allowed to sustain. He

further states that otherwise also, chances of conviction of the petitioners

in view of the aforesaid statement made on oath by the petitioners are very

remote and bleak and as such, prayer made in the instant petition may be

accepted.

6. Since the petition has been filed under
Section 482
Cr.PC, this

Court deems it fit to consider the present petition in the light of the

judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in
Narinder Singh and others

versus State of Punjab and another
(2014)6 Supreme Court Cases 466,

whereby 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 above
clearly depicts that in para 29.1, Hon'ble Apex

::: Downloaded on - 27/10/2022 20:31:53 :::CIS
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 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 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:

29.1Power 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.

::: Downloaded on - 27/10/2022 20:31:53 :::CIS
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 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

::: Downloaded on - 27/10/2022 20:31:53 :::CIS
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 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".

"32. We find from the impugned order that the sole reason
which weighed with the High Court in refusing to accept the

settlement between the parties was the nature of injuries. If we go
by that factor alone, normally we would tend to agree with the
High Court's approach. However, as pointed out hereinafter, some
other attendant and inseparable circumstances also need to be

kept in mind which compels us to take a different view.

33. We have gone through the FIR as well which was recorded on
the basis of statement of the complainant/victim. It gives an
indication that the complainant was attacked allegedly by the
accused persons because of some previous dispute between the
parties, though nature of dispute, etc. is not stated in detail.
However, a very pertinent statement appears on record viz.
"respectable persons have been trying for a compromise up till
now, which could not be finalized." This becomes an important
aspect. It appears that there have been some disputes which led

::: Downloaded on - 27/10/2022 20:31:53 :::CIS
to the aforesaid purported attack by the accused on the

.

complainant. In this context when we find that the elders of the

village, including Sarpanch, intervened in the matter and the
parties have not only buried their hatchet but have decided to
live peacefully in future, this becomes an important
consideration. The evidence is yet to be led in the Court. It has
not even started. In view of compromise between parties, there is

a minimal chance of the witnesses coming forward in support of
the prosecution case. Even though nature of injuries can still be
established by producing the doctor as witness who conduced
medical examination, it may become difficult to prove as to who
caused these injuries. The chances of conviction, therefore,
appear to be remote. It would, therefore, be unnecessary to drag

these proceedings. We, taking all these factors into
consideration cumulatively, are of the opinion that the
compromise between the parties be accepted and the criminal
proceedings arising out of FIR No.121 dated 14.7.2010 registered
with police station Lopoke, District Amritsar Rural be quashed.
We order accordingly."

7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case
Gian Singh v. State of

Punjab
and anr. (2012) 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 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 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

::: Downloaded on - 27/10/2022 20:31:53 :::CIS
in Dimpey Gujral and Ors. vs. Union Territory through Administrator,

.

UT, Chandigarh and Ors. (2013( 11 SCC 497 has also held as under:-

"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
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
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

::: Downloaded on - 27/10/2022 20:31:53 :::CIS
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." (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.

8. Recently 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.1723 of 2017 arising out of SLP(Crl) No.9549 of 2016,

reiterated the principles/ parameters
laid down in

Narinder Singh
's case

::: Downloaded on - 27/10/2022 20:31:53 :::CIS
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 Singh
(2016)1 SCC 389 by a bench of

two learned Judges of this Court. In that case, the High Court
had, in the exercise of its inherent power under Section 482
quashed proceedings under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 read
with Section 120-B of the Penal Code. While allowing the appeal
filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation Mr Justice Dipak

Misra (as the learned Chief Justice then was) observed 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:

r"...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 Stanley (2016) 1 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 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

::: Downloaded on - 27/10/2022 20:31:53 :::CIS
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

(i)

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;

(ii) 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.

(iii) 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;

(iv) While the inherent power of the High Court has a
wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised; (i) to
secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the
process of any court;

::: Downloaded on - 27/10/2022 20:31:53 :::CIS
(v) 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;

(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;

(vii) 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;

(viii) 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;

(ix) 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; and

(x) There is yet an exception to the principle set out in
propositions (viii) and (ix) above. Economic offences
involving the financial and economic well-being of the state
have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere

::: Downloaded on - 27/10/2022 20:31:53 :::CIS
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.

9. It is quite apparent from the aforesaid exposition of law that

High Court has inherent power to quash criminal proceedings even in those

cases which are not compoundable, but such power is to be exercised

sparingly and with great caution. In the judgments, referred hereinabove,

Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically held that Court while exercising

inherent power under
Section 482
Cr.P.C., must have due regard to the

nature and gravity of offence sought to be compounded. Hon'ble Apex Court

has though held that heinous and serious offences of mental depravity,

murder, rape, dacoity etc. cannot appropriately be quashed though the

victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute, but it has also

observed that while exercising its powers, 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. Hon'ble Apex Court has further held that Court while exercising

power under
Section 482
Cr.P.C can also be swayed by the fact that

settlement between the parties is going to result in harmony between them

::: Downloaded on - 27/10/2022 20:31:53 :::CIS
which may improve their future relationship. Hon'ble Apex Court in its

.

judgment rendered in State of Tamil Nadu supra, has reiterated that

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 and has

held that the power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the

offence is non-compoundable. In the aforesaid judgment Hon'ble Apex

Court has held that while forming an opinion whether a criminal

proceedings 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.

10. In the case at hand also, offences alleged to have been

committed by the petitioners do not involve offences of moral turpitude or

any grave/heinous crime, rather same are petty offences, 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 petitioners

and respondent have compromised the matter inter-se them, in which case,

possibility of conviction is remote/bleak and no fruitful purpose would be

served in continuing with the criminal proceedings.

11. Since the matter stands compromised between the parties and

respondent No 4 is no more interested in pursuing the criminal proceedings

::: Downloaded on - 27/10/2022 20:31:53 :::CIS
against the petitioners, no fruitful purpose would be served in case

.

proceedings initiated at the behest of the respondent are allowed to

continue, as such, prayer made in the petition at hand can be accepted.

12. Consequently, in view of the averments contained in the

petition as well as the submissions having been made by the learned

counsel for the parties that the matter has been compromised, and keeping

in mind the well settled proposition of law as well as the compromise being

genuine, FIR No. 266 of 2021, dated 25.8.2021, under
Sections 379
,
and
of IPC, registered with Police Station Balh, District Mandi, H.P., as

well as consequent proceedings, if any, pending before the court below, are

ordered to be quashed and set-aside.

13. The present petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.

Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

20th October, 2022 (Sandeep Sharma),
(manjit) Judge

::: Downloaded on - 27/10/2022 20:31:53 :::CIS