Budhi Parkash And Others vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 3432 HP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr.MMO No.149 of 2019 Reserved on: August 2, 2021

.

                                     Date of Decision: August 3, 2021





    Budhi Parkash and others                                       ...Petitioners.





                                     Versus

    State of Himachal Pradesh and others                            ...Respondents.

    Coram:

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anoop Chitkara, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?1NO

For the petitioner: Mr. Rajiv Rai, Advocate.

For the respondents: Mr. Nand Lal Thakur, Additional Advocate General, Mr. Ram Lal Thakur, Assistant Advocate General and Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Law Officer, for the State.

Mr. R.L. Chaudhary, Advoate, for Respondents No.4, 5, 6,

8 and 9.

Mr. Mukesh Sharma, Advocate vice Mr. Paresh Sharma, Advocate, for Respondents No.7 and 10 to 14.

                           THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE

        FIR No.    Dated           Police Station      Sections





        11/ 2013   24.1.2013       Kihar,     District 420, 34 and 120B of the IPC
                                   Chamba, H.P.

    Anoop Chitkara, Judge.

The petitioners, who stand arraigned as accused in the FIR mentioned above, have come up before this Court under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to quash the proceedings given the compromise between the parties.

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. Ld. Counsel for the parties submitted that the parties have resolved the criminal dispute between them and seek quashing of the FIR mention above and closure of all consequential proceedings.

.

3. The following aspects would be relevant to conclude this petition: -

         a)    The incident relates to civil disputes.
         b)    The parties have amicably settled the matter between them in terms of

the compromise deed (Annexure P-3). The complainant does not dispute this

compromise deed, which reads as follow:

"....1 That complainants/victims and accused No.1 & 2 are residents of the same ilaka and are having deep social and personal relations

among them.

2. That the complainants/victims had got registered the aforesaid case under section 120B/34/420 IPC against the accused persons at police station Kihar Tehsil Salooni, District Chamba vide FIR No.11/13 dated

4.1.2013.

3. That the applicants/victims want to live in peace and harmony with the accused No.1 and 2 being the residents of the same ilaka, but the further proceeding with this case would further widen rift between them

and their relations would be strained and deteriorated further.

4. That apart from it, the matter has also been discussed with accused No.3 to 6 and their employer i.e. the company "Success on line service

system Private Limited" and the complainants/victims are fully satisfied

with the said discussion.

4. That for the better relations, peace and harmony, complainants/ victims have agreed not to proceed further with the present complaint and

in lieu thereof, the accused has also agreed to address the grievances of complainants/victims if any."

c) In the given facts, the occurrence was limited and confined between relatives and does not affect public peace or tranquility.

d) The rejection of compromise may also lead to ill will, and the purpose of criminal jurisprudence is reformatory in nature and to work for bringing peace in family and society.

e) The pendency of trial affects career and happiness.

f) Even if this case is put to trial, the parties are likely to maintain the stand they have taken in this compromise, which is expected to result in the accused's acquittal.

.

STAGE OF QUASHING FIR:

4. In Ashok Chaturvedi v Shitul H. Chanchani, 1998(7) SCC 698, Hon'ble Supreme Court holds that the determination of the question as regards the propriety

of the order of the Magistrate taking cognizance and issuing process need not necessarily wait till the stage of framing the charge. The Court holds, "...This argument, however, does not appeal to us inasmuch as merely because an accused

has a right to plead at the time of framing of charges that there is no sufficient material for such framing of charges as provided in Section 245 of the Criminal Procedure Code, he is debarred from approaching the court even at an earliest (sic earlier) point of time when the Magistrate takes cognizance of the offence and

summons the accused to appear to contend that the very issuance of the order of

taking cognizance is invalid on the ground that no offence can be said to have been made out on the allegations made in the complaint petition. It has been held in a number of cases that power under Section 482 has to be exercised sparingly and in

the interest of justice. But allowing the criminal proceeding to continue even where the allegations in the complaint petition do not make out any offence would be tantamount to an abuse of the process of court, and therefore, there cannot be any

dispute that in such case power under section 482 of the Code can be exercised.

5. In Girish Sarwate v. State of A.P., 2005(1) R.C.R.(Criminal) 758, the Full

Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court observed that the High Court need not wait for completion of investigation and taking cognizance by the Magistrate.

CONCLUSION:

6. The petitioners have placed on record the Compromise Deed as Annexure P-3. The petitioners have also placed on record the receipts of the payment of money as Annexures P-8 (colly). Reply filed by respondents No.7 and 10 to 13 do not state on oath that they have no objection in case FIR is quashed. During the course of arguments Mr. R.L. Chaudhary, learned counsel appearing for the private respondents No.4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 as well as Mr. Mukesh Sharma, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.7 and 10 to 14 stated on instructions that they have no

objection in case FIR is quashed because they have received their money. It appears that the petitioners fell in greed and so do the complainants. However, now the matter has been compromised and there is no point to continue it further.

.

7. In the present case, the offence under Section 420 IPC is not compoundable

under Section 320 CrPC. However, this Court has inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to interfere in this kind of matter. Given the entirety of the case and judicial precedents, I am of the considered opinion that the

continuation of these proceedings will not suffice any fruitful purpose whatsoever.

8. Although, the withdrawal of FIR would be through District Magistrate as a routine procedure. However, the High Court's inherent jurisdiction under Section 482

of the CRPC, to intervene in such kind of matter, and it is not the requirement of law that the cancellation has to be approved only through the District Magistrate. Inherent Jurisdiction of the High Court under section 482 CrPC can always be exercised, depending upon the facts and circumstances. The parties are likely to live

together for a lifetime, and intervention would create a cordial environment for

peaceful relations between them.

9. In Himachal Pradesh Cricket Association v State of Himachal Pradesh, 2018 (4) Crimes 324, Hon'ble Supreme Court holds "[47]. As far as Writ Petition

(Criminal) No. 135 of 2017 is concerned, the appellants came to this Court challenging the order of cognizance only because of the reason that matter was already pending as the appellants had filed the Special Leave Petitions against the

order of the High Court rejecting their petition for quashing of the FIR/Chargesheet.

Having regard to these peculiar facts, writ petition has also been entertained. In any case, once we hold that FIR needs to be quashed, order of cognizance would automatically stands vitiated."

10. In Shakuntala Sawhney v Kaushalya Sawhney, (1979) 3 SCR 639, at p 642, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the finest hour of Justice arises propitiously when parties, who fell apart, bury the hatchet and weave a sense of fellowship or reunion.

11. Given above, because of the compromise, this is a fit case where the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is invoked to quash the proceedings mentioned above. The FIR mentioned above is quashed, and all the consequential proceedings are also quashed and set aside. The

bail bonds are accordingly discharged. All pending application(s), if any, stand closed.

In the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, the petition is allowed in

.

the aforementioned terms.

Copy Dasti.

Anoop Chitkara,

Judge.

    August 3, 2021 (ks)




                      r               to