Himachal Pradesh High Court

Lekh Ram & Others vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Another on 1 December, 2022

Author:
Sandeep Sharma

Bench:
Sandeep Sharma

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.

CrMMO No. 1087 of 2022
Decided on: 1.12.2022
________________________________________________________

.
Lekh Ram & others ...Petitioners

Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and another ....Respondents
________________________________________________________
Coram:

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? 1No.
________________________________________________________

For the Petitioner : Mr. H. S. Rangra, Advocate.

For the Respondents : Mr. Narinder Guleria, Additional
Advocate General with Ms.
Svaneel Jaswal, Deputy Advocate
General, for respondent No.1.

Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate, for

respondent no.2.
________________________________________________________

Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

By way of instant petition filed under
Section 482

CrPC, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioners for

quashing of FIR No. 57 of 2016 dated 24.2.2016, registered at

Police Station Balh District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh under

Sections 447
,
, 506 and
Section 34
of IPC against the

petitioners alongwith consequential proceedings, on the basis of

compromise arrived inter se parties.

2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the

record, are that the FIR sought to be quashed in the instant

proceedings, came to be lodged at the behest of respondent
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

::: Downloaded on - 03/12/2022 20:32:09 :::CIS
No.2/complainant (hereinafter, 'complainant') who alleged that

on 8.2.2016 at 6.00 pm, petitioner unauthorizedly entered in

her land and uprooted the boundary polls. The complainant

.

also alleged that she tried to stop the petitioners from doing this

unlawful act but the petitioners not only extended threats to her

but also caused damage to her property. Though, after

completion of investigation, police has presented the Challan in

the competent court of law but before the same could be taken

to its logical end, parties have entered into compromise, whereby

they have resolved to settle the dispute inter se them amicably.

In the aforesaid background, petitioners have approached this

court in the instant proceedings for quashing of FIR alongwith

consequential proceedings pending in the competent court of

law.

3. Vide order dated 17.11.2022, this court while

directing respondent-State to verify the factum with regard to

compromise, if any, arrived inter se parties, also deemed it

necessary to cause presence of respondent No.2, at whose

instance, FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings,

came to be lodged so that the correctness and genuineness of

the compromise could be ascertained.

4. Though, reply of the respondent-State has been filed

but the same is not on record. Registry is directed to trace and

place the same on record. Photocopy of status report/reply

nowhere reveals the factum with regard to compromise, if any,

::: Downloaded on - 03/12/2022 20:32:09 :::CIS
arrived inter se parties, however, respondent No.2/complainant,

at whose instance FIR sought to be quashed, came to be lodged,

has come present in the court, who is duly represented by Mr.

.

Vivek Sharma, Advocate. Respondent No.2 states on oath that

she of her own volition and without there being any external

pressure has entered into compromise with the petitioners,

whereby they have resolved to settle the dispute inter se them

amicably. She states that the FIR sought to be quashed is result

of misunderstanding and otherwise also the petitioners have

apologized for
r the damage caused to her property and

compensated her for the same, as such, she shall have no

objection in case, prayer made on behalf of the petitioners for

quashing of FIR alongwith consequential proceedings is allowed

and petitioners are acquitted of the charges framed against

them. While admitting contents of the compromise to be correct,

she also admits her signatures thereupon.

5. Mr. Narender Guleria, learned Additional Advocate

General, after having heard the statement made by respondent

No.2, states that no fruitful purpose will be served in case FIR as

well consequent proceedings against the petitioner are allowed to

sustain. He further states that otherwise also, chances of

conviction of petitioners are remote and bleak on account of

statement made by respondent No. 2, as such, State shall have

no objection, in case prayer made in the instant petition for

::: Downloaded on - 03/12/2022 20:32:09 :::CIS
quashment of FIR alongwith consequential proceedings, is

accepted.

6. 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 another
(2014)6 SCC 466 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, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not

private in nature and have a serious impact on society.

7. At this stage, it would be relevant to take note of the

judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in
Narinder Singh

(supra), whereby 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
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

parties have settled the matter between themselves, however,

::: Downloaded on - 03/12/2022 20:32:09 :::CIS
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
of the Code, the High Court has inherent
power to quash the criminal proceedings even in
those cases which are not compoundable, where

the parties have settled the matter between
themselves. However, this power is to be exercised

sparingly and with caution.

29.2. When the parties have reached the
settlement and on that basis petition for quashing
the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor
in such cases would be to secure:

(i) ends of justice, or

(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court.

While exercising the power under
Section 482

Cr.P.C the High Court is to form an opinion on

either of the aforesaid two objectives.
29.3. Such a power is not be exercised in those

prosecutions which involve heinous and serious
offences of mental depravity or offences like
murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not
private in nature and have a serious impact on

society. Similarly, for offences alleged to have been
committed under special statute like the
Prevention
of Corruption Act
or the offences committed by
Public Servants while working in that capacity are
not to be quashed merely on the basis of
compromise between the victim and the offender.
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

::: Downloaded on - 03/12/2022 20:32:09 :::CIS
be quashed when the parties have resolved their
entire disputes among themselves.

29.5. While exercising its powers, the High Court is
to examine as to whether the possibility of
conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of

.

criminal cases would put the accused to great

oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice
would be caused to him by not quashing the
criminal cases.

29.6. Offences under
Section 307
IPC would fall in

the category of heinous and serious offences and
therefore is to be generally treated as crime
against the society and not against the individual
alone. However, the High Court would not rest its
decision merely because there is a mention of

Section 307
IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed
under this provision. It would be open to the High
Court to examine as to whether incorporation of

Section 307
IPC is there for the sake of it or the
prosecution has collected sufficient evidence,

which if proved, would lead to proving the charge
under
Section 307
IPC. For this purpose, it would

be open to the High Court to go by the nature of
injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted
on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of
weapons used etc. Medical report in respect of
injuries suffered by the victim can generally be the

guiding factor. On the basis of this prima facie
analysis, the High Court can examine as to
whether there is a strong possibility of conviction
or the chances of conviction are remote and bleak.

In the former case it can refuse to accept the
settlement and quash the criminal proceedings

whereas in the later case it would be permissible
for the High Court to accept the plea compounding
the offence based on complete settlement between
the parties. At this stage, the Court can also be

swayed by the fact that the settlement between
the parties is going to result in harmony between
them which may improve their future relationship.
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

::: Downloaded on - 03/12/2022 20:32:09 :::CIS
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
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".

8. 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

::: Downloaded on - 03/12/2022 20:32:09 :::CIS
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.

9. 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 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. (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.

::: Downloaded on - 03/12/2022 20:32:09 :::CIS
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 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

::: Downloaded on - 03/12/2022 20:32:09 :::CIS
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
r 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
,
,
,
,
,
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."

10. Hon'ble Apex Court in its 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 supra for

accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings. It would

::: Downloaded on - 03/12/2022 20:32:09 :::CIS
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:

"...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 Criminal Procedure

relating to exercise of jurisdiction Under Section 437,
etc. therein but that altogether pertains to a different

::: Downloaded on - 03/12/2022 20:32:09 :::CIS
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:

(i) 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;

(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;

::: Downloaded on - 03/12/2022 20:32:09 :::CIS
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 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."

11. In the case at hand, the offences alleged to have

been committed by the accused do not pertain to offence of

moral turpitude or heinous offences rather the offence alleged to

have been committed is a petty offence and more over

::: Downloaded on - 03/12/2022 20:32:09 :::CIS
compromise has been arrived at inter se parties, as such, no

fruitful purpose would be served in continuing with criminal

prosecution of the petitioners, more so when the complainant

.

has compromised the matter with the accused and she is also

no more interested in pursuing the case further. Otherwise also,

there are bleak and remote chances of conviction of accused and

as such, this court sees no impediment in accepting the prayer

made by petitioners for quashing of FIR.

12. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion as

well as law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court (supra), FIR No.

57 of 2016 dated 24.2.2016, registered at Police Station Balh

District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh under Sections 447, 379, 506

and
Section 34
of IPC alongwith consequential proceedings,

pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,

Court No. 3, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. is quashed and set

aside. Petitioners are acquitted of the charges framed against

them in the said FIR/proceedings.

The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms,

alongwith all pending applications.

(Sandeep Sharma)
Judge
1st December, 2022
(kck)

::: Downloaded on - 03/12/2022 20:32:09 :::CIS
Cr.MMO No. 1087 of 2022

Statement of Ms. Neel Pathak D/o Prakash Pathak,
resident of village Lunapani, P.O. Bhangrotu, Tehsil
Balh, district Mandi, H.P.

.

On oath:

1st December, 2022

Stated that I have come present in the court of my

own volition and without there being any external pressure. FIR

No. 57 of 2016 dated 24.2.2016 was registered at Police Station

Balh District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh under Sections 447,

379, 506 and
Section 34
of IPC against the petitioners at my

behest. Now we have compromised the matter and petitioners

have apologized for their behaviour and have undertaken not to

repeat such acts in future and have compensated me for the

damage caused to my property, as such, I shall have no

objection in case aforesaid FIR alongwith consequential

proceedings pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate

First Class, Court No.3, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. is quashed

and set aside and petitioners are acquitted of the offences

framed against them in the FIR. Annexure P-2 bears my

signatures. I am making this statement, without any fear,

coercion or threat.

RO & AC (Sandeep Sharma)
Judge

1st December, 2022
(kck)

::: Downloaded on - 03/12/2022 20:32:09 :::CIS