Shyam Lal & Others vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 3423 HP

                                                                   1

      IN        THE            HIGH            COURT OF HIMACHAL                                        PRADESH,
                                                  SHIMLA

                                                                                    Cr.MMO No.176 of 2020




                                                                                               .

                                                                             Date of Decision: 3.08.2021
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Shyam Lal & others                                                                               ......Petitioners





                                                         Versus

    State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr.                                                              ....Respondents





    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Coram
    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
    Whether approved for reporting1?

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    For the Petitioners:                      Mr. Jagan Nath, Advocate.

    For the Respondents: Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar and Mr. Desh Raj
                         Thakur, Additional Advocate Generals
                         with Mr. Narender Thakur, Deputy


                         Advocate    General,  for  respondent
                         No.1/State.
                                              Mr. H.S.Rangra, Advocate, for respondent
                                              No.2.




                            Through video-conferencing





    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

By way of instant petition filed under Section 482 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, prayer has been made on behalf of the

petitioners for quashing of FIR No. 306 of 2018, dated 16.12.2018

under Sections 306 and 498-A of IPC, registered at police Station

Sunder Nagar, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh as well as

consequent proceedings pending adjudication in the Court of learned

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

Additional Sessions Judge, Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P., in

case No.125/1/2019, titled as State of H.P versus Shyam Lal and

.

others, on the basis of the amicable settlement 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 No.2/ complainant

namely, Sh. Ramesh Kumar, who alleged that marriage of his

daughter namely, Jyoti was solemnized with petitioner No.1, Shyam

Lal in the year 2013, as per Hindu rites and customs and out of their

wedlock two children were born. He alleged that since in-laws of his

daughter i.e. petitioners constantly maltreated his daughter on

account of bringing less dowry, she was compelled to commit suicide

on 15.12.2020 by consuming poison. After completion of the

investigation, police presented the challan in the competent court of

law, but before same could be taken to its logical end, petitioners, who

happened to be husband and in-laws of deceased daughter of the

complainant entered into the compromise with respondent No.2/

complainant i.e. father of the deceased, whereby both the parties have

resolved to settle their dispute amicably interse them and as such,

petitioners approached this Court in the instant proceedings for

quashing of FIR as well as consequent proceedings pending in the

competent Court of law.

.

3. Having taken note of the prayer made on behalf of the

petitioners for quashing of FIR on the basis of the compromise arrived

interse parties, this Court with a view to ascertain the genuineness of

compromise placed on record, deemed it necessary to cause presence

of the parties, especially respondent No.2/complainant, at whose

instance FIR sought to be quashed, came to be instituted. Besides

above, this Court also directed learned Additional Advocate General

to file reply and verify the factum with regard to compromise, if any,

arrived interse parties.

4. Pursuant to order dated 28.7.2021, parties to the lis have

come present. Respondent-State has also filed reply, wherein prayer

made on behalf of the petitioners for quashing of FIR has been

opposed on the ground that since police after completion of the

investigation has presented the challan in the competent court of law

coupled with the fact that petitioners have allegedly committed

heinous crime, they are not entitled to any kind of leniency to be

shown by this Court.

5. Respondent No.2/complainant Ramesh Kumar states on

oath that he of his own volition and without there being any external

pressure has entered into the compromise (Annexure P-4) with the

petitioners, whereby both the parties have resolved to settle their

dispute amicably interse them. He states that since on the date of

.

death of his daughter he was not in a fit state of mind and had no

clarity with regard to reason for committing suicide by his daughter,

he in the rage of anger lodged the complaint against the petitioners

alleging therein that they used to maltreat his daughter. He states

that after sometime, he came to know that his daughter committed

suicide for the reason that his deceased daughter having given

beatings to her minor daughter Kritika, who had allegedly damaged

her mobile phone had developed conscious guilty and consumed

insecticides. He further stated that he lodged the FIR, sought to be

quashed, without inquiring the real facts under the pressure of other

relatives. But now since he has come to know the real facts, he does

not wish to prosecute the case further lodged at his behest and as

such, shall have no objection in case prayer made in the instant

petition for quashing of FIR as well as consequent proceedings, if any,

pending in the competent court of law, is accepted. His statement is

taken on record.

6. Mr. Narender Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General

while opposing aforesaid prayer made on behalf of the petitioners,

contends that since there is overwhelming evidence that petitioners

have committed offence under Sections 306 and 498-A of IPC, prayer

made on behalf of the petitioners cannot be accepted and as such,

petition having been filed on their behalf may kindly be rejected.

.

7. This Court, after having carefully perused the

compromise, which has been duly effected between the parties, sees

substantial force in the prayer having been made by the learned

counsel for the petitioners that offences in the instant case can be

ordered to be compounded.

8.

Since the petition has been filed under Section 482

Cr.P.C, 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 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".

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 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 r 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 se 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."

10. 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 the power 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

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 r 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 bee inherent n 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 transac mental tions 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 r balance.

11. The Hon'ble Apex Court in (2019) 5 SCC 688,

titled as State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan , has held

as under:-

" 15 . Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of

this Court on the point, referred to hereinabove, it is observed and held as under:

15.1 That the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised

having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves;

15.2. Such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved 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; 15.3 Similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes like 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;

15.4 Offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act etc. would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal proceedings for the offence under Section 307 IPC and/or the

.

Arms Act etc. which have a serious impact on the society

cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code, on the ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst themselves. 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 framing 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. However, such an exercise by the High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is rcollected after investigation and the charge sheet is

filed/charge is framed and/or during the trial. Such exercise is not permissible when the matter is still under investigation. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in paragraphs 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in the case of Narinder Singh (supra) should be read harmoniously and to be read as a

whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove; 15.5 While exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non- compoundable offences, which are private in nature and do

not have a serious impart on society, on the ground that there is a settlement/ compromise between the victim and the

offender, the High Court is required to consider the antecedents of the accused; the conduct of the accused, namely, whether the accused was absconding and why he was absconding, how he had managed with the complainant to

enter into a compromise etc.

12. 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

continuation to as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and

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.

.

13. True, it is that in the case at hand allegations against the

petitioners are of very serious nature and as such, prayer made on

their behalf for quashing of FIR cannot be accepted mechanically,

rather material available on record needs to be scrutinized minutely.

If the final report submitted by the police under Section 173 Cr.P.C, is

perused in its entirety, it nowhere suggests that prior to alleged

incident complaint of maltreatment of deceased daughter of

respondent No.2/complainant ever came to be filed. Similarly, report

filed by the police nowhere suggests that immediate neighbours of the

in-laws of the deceased made any statement to the police qua the

harassment, if any, caused by the petitioners to the deceased

daughter of respondent No.2/complainant. All the prosecution

witnesses are closely related to each other and as such, version put

forth by them, required to be taken into consideration very diligently

and minutely while ascertaining the guilt, if any, of the petitioners. It

also emerged from the record that at the time of alleged incident none

of the family members of the petitioners were present in the house.

Petitioners No.2 and 3, who are aged persons had gone to field,

whereas petitioner No.1, who happened to be husband of the deceased

had gone for his duty. Minor daughter of deceased and petitioner No.1

informed her grandparents in the fields about the alleged incident,

who in turn, informed petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.1

.

immediately after seen the deceased in unconscious condition took

her to hospital and informed respondent No.2/complainant and as

such, it cannot be said that the petitioners left deceased to die, rather

they take all precautions to ensure that the deceased is saved,

however, she expired on account of poison consumed by her. Though,

offence alleged to have been committed is serious in nature, but

definitely cannot be said to be heinous crime, as has been defined in

the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Narinder Singh case

(Supra) and as such, there appears to be no impediment in accepting

the prayer made in the instant petition for quashing of the FIR,

especially when respondent No.2/complainant has categorically stated

before this Court that at the time of filing FIR, he was not aware

about the true facts and he in rage of anger lodged the FIR against

the petitioners, who are otherwise innocent. Since, respondent

No.2/complainant has entered into the compromise with the

petitioners, who are otherwise his relative and there are two minor

children to be taken care of by the petitioners, this Court is of the

view that no prejudice would be caused to either of the parties, if

prayer made on behalf of the petitioners for quashing of FIR as well

as consequent proceedings, is accepted. Since respondent No.2/

complainant has already stated before this Court that FIR instituted

by him is result of misunderstanding and petitioners are innocent, no

.

fruitful purpose would be served in case FIR sought to be quashed is

allowed to sustain because otherwise in that event chances of

conviction of the petitioners/accused are very remote and bleak and in

case prayer made in the instant petition is not accepted, petitioners

would suffer endlessly on account of protracted trial.

14.

Since the matter stands compromised between the parties

and respondent No.2/complainant is no more interested in pursuing

the criminal proceedings against the petitioner, no fruitful purpose

would be served in case proceedings initiated at the behest of

respondent No.2 are allowed to continue, as such, prayer made in the

petition at hand can be accepted.

15. 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, this Court has no inhibition in accepting

the compromise and quashing the FIR as well as consequent

proceedings pending in the competent Court of law.

16. Accordingly, in view of the detailed discussion made

hereinabove as well as law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, FIR

No. 306 of 2018, dated 16.12.2018 under Sections 306 and 498-A of

IPC, registered at police Station, Sunder Nagar, District Mandi,

.

Himachal Pradesh as well as consequent proceedings pending

adjudication in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge,

Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P., in case No.125/1/2019, titled as

State of Himachal Pradesh versus Shyam Lal and others, are

quashed and set-aside.

17.

The present petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.

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

    3rd August, 2021                                   (Sandeep Sharma),


          (shankar)                                        Judge