Anmol Dogra & Another vs State Of H.P & Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 3420 HP

             IN      THE
                  HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
                                      Cr.MMO No.254 of 2021
                                      Date of Decision: 03.08.2021
    _______________________________________________________________




                                                                                               .
    Anmol Dogra & another                                                                  .........Petitioners





                                                            Versus

    State of H.P & another                             ..........Respondents





    Coram:
    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
    Whether approved for reporting1?
    _________________________________________________________________
    For the petitioners       :   Mr. Ajay Sharma, Senior Advocate with Ms.





                                  Aanandita Sharma, Advocate, for petitioner
                                  No.1.
                                  Mr. Amit Jamwal, Advocate, for petitioner
                               r  No.2/complainant.

    For the respondent                               :      Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar and Mr. Desh Raj

                                                            Thakur, Additional Advocate Generals with
                                                            Mr. Narinder Thakur, Deputy Advocate
                                                            General, for respondent No.1-State.

                                                            (through video conferencing)



    Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral):

By way of instant petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C, prayer

has been made on behalf of the petitioners for quashing of FIR No. 479, dated

04.03.2019, under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of IPC, registered at Police

Station, Barsar, Tehsil Barsar, District Hamirpur, H.P. as well as consequent

proceedings pending adjudication before learned Judicial Magistrate-cum-Civil

Judge, Ist Class, Barsar, District Hamirpur, in Case No. 25-1-2019/47/19, on the

basis of compromise/amicable settlement (Annexure P-1) arrived inter se

parties.

1Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment?

2. Averments contained in the petition, which are duly supported by

an affidavit as well as documents annexed therewith, clearly reveals that FIR,

sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings, came to be lodged against

.

petitioner No.1, Anmol Dogra, at the behest of complainant/petitioner No.2,

Lucky Debles, who alleged that on 04.03.2019, Scooty bearing No.HP21B-

6649, being driven by Anmol Dogra, came in high speed and rammed with his

Car bearing No.HP21B-1163, as a consequence of which, damage was caused

to his vehicle. After completion of investigation, police presented the challan in

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

both the petitioners, have entered into compromise (Annexure P-1) and as

such, have jointly approached this Court in the instant proceedings praying

therein for quashing of FIR as well as consequent proceedings,if any, pending

in the competent Court of law.

3. On 12.07.2021, this Court while issuing notice to respondents,

deemed it necessary to cause presence of parties, especially, petitioner No.2,

at whose behest, instant FIR sought to be quashed, came to be instituted, so

that genuineness of the compromise placed on record, could be ascertained.

4. Besides above, this Court also directed learned Additional

Advocate General to verify the factum with regard to compromise, if any,

arrived at inter se the parties. Pursuant to aforesaid direction issued by this

Court, Mr. Desh Raj, learned Additional Advocate General, states that as per

instructions imparted to him by SHO, concerned, parties have resolved to

settle their dispute amicably inter se parties, by way of compromise placed on

record.

5. Petitioner No.2, Lucky Debles, has also come present in the

.

Court and is being represented by Mr. Amit Jamwal, Advocate. He, on oath,

states before this Court that he of his own volition and without there being any

external pressure, has entered into compromise with petitioner Anmol Dogra

(Annexure P-1), whereby both the parties have resolved to settle their dispute

amicably inter se them. He states that FIR sought to be quashed in the instant

proceedings is result of misunderstanding inter se him and the petitioner Anmol

Dogra and since, he has been duly compensated by the petitioner qua the loss

caused to his vehicle in the alleged accident, he shall have no objection, in

case prayer made in the instant petition for quashing of FIR as well as

consequential proceedings pending in the competent court of law are quashed

and set aside. Statement of petitioner No.2, is taken on record.

6. Mr. Desh Raj Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, after

having heard the aforesaid statement of petitioner No.2, fairly states that that

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

purpose would be served in case FIR as well as consequent proceedings

pending before the court below are allowed to sustain. He further states that

otherwise also, there are very remote/bleak chances of conviction of petitioner

No.1, on account of statement given by the complainant before this Court and

as such, State shall have no objection in case prayer made in the petition is

allowed.

7. 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 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.

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 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 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

8.

quashed. We order accordingly."

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 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

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, 148, 149, 323, 307, 452 and 506

of the IPC at Police Station Sector 3, Chandigarh and all

consequential proceedings arising there from including the final

.

report presented under Section 173 of the Code and charges

framed by the trial Court are hereby quashed.

9. 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 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:

"...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 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

r to 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;

.

(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.

10. 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 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.

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

committed by the petitioner 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 both the petitioners have

compromised the matter inter se them, in which case, possibility of conviction is

.

remote and no fruitful purpose would be served in continuing with the criminal

proceedings.

12. Since, the matter stands compromised between the parties and

petitioner No.2 is no more interested in pursuing the criminal proceedings

against petitioner No.1, Anmol Dogra, no fruitful purpose would be served in

13.

r to case proceedings initiated at the behest of petitioner No.2 are allowed to

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

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.

479, dated 04.03.2019, under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of IPC, registered at

Police Station, Barsar, Tehsil Barsar, District Hamirpur, H.P. as well as

consequent proceedings pending before the Court below, are ordered to be

quashed and set-aside.

14. The present petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending

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

(Sandeep Sharma) Judge 3rd August, 2021.

(reena)

.