Harpal Singh vs Unknown
2021 Latest Caselaw 3958 HP

                                   1




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT
                            SHIMLA
                  ON THE 17th DAY OF AUGUST, 2021




                                                          .
                               BEFORE





            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIVEK SINGH THAKUR





     CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION (MAIN) U/S 482 CRPC NO.12 OF
                            2020
    Between:-
    1.   HARPAL SINGH
         S/O SH.DATA RAM,





         R/O VILLAGE DHANG UPRLI, TEHSIL
         NALAGARH, DISTRICT SOLAN, H.P.


    2.   PARAMJEET SINGH

         S/O HARBANS SINGH,

         R/O VILLAGE DHANG UPRLI, TEHSIL
         NALAGARH, DISTRICT SOLAN, H.P.


    3.   PRITAM SINGH


         S/O SH. HOSHIAR SINGH,
         R/O    VILLAGE    MAJRA,  TEHSIL
         NALAGARH, DISTRICT SOLAN, H.P.




    4.   SHIV KUMAR





         S/O SH. JAI SINGH,
         R/O   VILLAGE     BHATIAN, TEHSIL
         NALAGARH, DISTRICT SOLAN, H.P.





    5.   GURBACHAN SINGH
         S/O SH. KRISHAN SINGH,
         R/O    VILLAGE    MAJRA,  TEHSIL
         NALAGARH, DISTRICT SOLAN, H.P.


    6.   VINDER SINGH
         S/O SH. RAM SINGH,
         R/O     VPO    BHATIAN,   TEHSIL
         NALAGARH, DISTRICT SOLAN, H.P.
                                                          .....PETITIONERS
    (BY SH. AMRINDER SINGH RANA,
     ADVOCATE)




                                         ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 22:53:47 :::CIS
                                      2



         AND

    1.   STATE OF H.P.
    (BY MR.ANIL JASWAL, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL)
    2.   BIR SINGH




                                                            .
         S/O SH. DAULAT RAM,





         R/O    VILLAGE   KHERA,   TEHSIL
         NALAGARH, DISTRICT SOLAN, H.P.





                                                         .....RESPONDENTS
    (BY MS. MEGHA KAPUR GAUTAM,
    ADVOCATE)

                This petition coming on for orders this day, the Court





    passed the following:
                            JUDGMENT

The instant petition, under Section 482 read with

Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred

to as 'Cr.PC') has been filed by petitioners Harpal Singh, Paramjeet

Singh, Pritam Singh, Shiv Kumar, Gurbachan Singh and Vinder

Singh, on the basis of compromise deed (Annexure P-2) arrived at

between them and respondent No.2-Bir Singh, for quashing of FIR

No.239 of 2016, dated 30.11.2016, registered in Police Station

Nalagarh, Police District Baddi, H.P., under Sections 341, 323, 147,

148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC'), Section 25 of

the Arms Act, 1959, and consequent proceedings arising thereto.

2. Petitioners Harpal Singh, Paramjeet Singh, Pritam

Singh, Shiv Kumar, Gurbachan Singh and Vinder Singh and

complainant-respondent No.2-Bir Singh were present in person in

the Court on 29.07.2021, who had been identified by their

respective learned counsel. Statements of respondent No.2-Bir

Singh as well as petitioners-Harpal Singh, Paramjeet Singh, Pritam

Singh, Shiv Kumar, Gurbachan Singh and Vinder Singh, on oath,

were recorded in the Court.

3. In his statement, complainant-respondent No.2 Bir

Singh has stated that he is cashier in Truck Union Nalagarh and

.

most of the petitioners are members of Truck Union Nalagarh being

owners of trucks. He has further stated that on the day of incident,

a clash had taken place on the spot which was reported by him to

police, on the basis of which FIR No.239 of 2016 was registered

against the petitioners and now with intervention of common

friends, they have decided to bury their differences and he has also

decided to forgive the petitioners and has entered into a

compromise with them, which is Annexure P-2 and bears his

signatures. He has further stated that he has signed the

compromise deed and made this statement out of his free will,

consent, and also without any kind of threat, coercion or pressure

etc.

4. In their joint statement, petitioners-Harpal Singh,

Paramjeet Singh, Pritam Singh, Shiv Kumar, Gurbachan Singh and

Vinder Singh, have endorsed the statement made by complainant-

respondent No.2-Bir Singh to be true and correct as per

compromise. They have further stated that they have undertaken

not to repeat such incident in future and have made this statement

out of their free will, consent and without any pressure and have

also identified their signatures on the compromise deed (Annexure

P-2).

5. It is contended on behalf of respondent No.1-State that

petitioners-accused are not entitled to invoke inherent jurisdiction

of this Court to exercise its power on the basis of compromise

arrived at between the parties with respect to offences not

compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C.

6. Three Judges Bench of the Apex Court in Gian Singh Vs.

.

State of Punjab and Ors. reported in(2012) 10 SCC 303, explaining

that High Court has inherent power under Section 482 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure with no statutory limitation including Section

320 Cr.PC, has held that these powers are to be exercised to

secure the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process of any

Court and these powers can be exercised to quash criminal

proceedings or complaint or FIR in appropriate cases where

offender and victim have settled their dispute and for that purpose

no definite category of offence can be prescribed. However, it is

also observed that Courts must have due regard to nature and

gravity of the crime and criminal proceedings in heinous and

serious offences or offence like murder, rape and dacoity etc.

should not be quashed despite victim or victim family have settled

the dispute with offender. Jurisdiction vested in High Court under

Section 482 Cr.PC is held to be exercisable for quashing criminal

proceedings in cases having overwhelming and predominatingly

civil flavour particularly offences arising from commercial, financial,

mercantile, civil partnership, or such like transactions, or even

offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry etc., family

disputes or other such disputes where wrong is basically private or

personal nature where parties mutually resolve their dispute

amicably. It was also held that no category or cases for this purpose

could be prescribed and each case has to be dealt with on its own

merit but it is also clarified that this power does not extend to

crimes against society.

7. The Apex Court in Parbatbhai Aahir alias Parbhathbhai

Bhimsinghbhai Karmur and others vs. State of Gujarat and another,

.

(2017) 9 SCC 641, summarizing the broad principles regarding

inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has

recognized that these powers are not inhibited by provisions of

Section 320 Cr.P.C.

8. The Apex Court in case Narinder Singh and others vs.

State of Punjab and others reported in (2014)6 SCC 466 and also in

State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan and others (2019) 5 SCC

688, has summed up and laid down principles by which the High

Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the

settlement between the parties and exercise 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 criminal proceedings.

No doubt Sections 147, 148 and 149 of IPC are not

9.

compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C. However, as explained by

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh's, Narinder Singh's, Parbatbhai

Aahir's and Laxmi Narayan's cases supra, power of High Court under

Section 482 Cr.PC is not inhibited by the provisions of Section 320

CrPC and FIR as well as criminal proceedings can be quashed by

exercising inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.PC, if warranted in

given facts and circumstances of the case for ends of justice or to

prevent abuse of the process of any Court, even in those cases

which are not compoundable where parties have settled the matter

between themselves.

10. In Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab, (2008) 4 SCC

582, the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasized and advised that in

.

the matter of compromise in criminal proceedings, keeping in view

of nature of this case, to save the time of the Court for utilizing to

decide more effective and meaningful litigation, a commonsense

approach, based on ground realities and bereft of the technicalities

of law, should be applied.

11. Now, the matter has been amicably settled between

the private parties on the basis of compromise arrived at between

them, as such, I am of the considered view that no fruitful purpose

shall be served to continue the proceedings against petitioners-

Harpal Singh, Paramjeet Singh, Pritam Singh, Shiv Kumar,

Gurbachan Singh and Vinder Singh.

12. Offences in question, for material on record, do not fall

in the category of offence termed to be prohibited, in terms of the

pronouncements of Apex Court, to be compounded, exercising

power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

13. Keeping in view nature and gravity of offence and

considering facts and circumstances of the case in entirety, I am of

the opinion that present petition deserves to be allowed for ends of

justice and the same is allowed accordingly and FIR No.239 of 2016,

dated 30.11.2016, registered in Police Station Nalagarh, Police

District Baddi, H.P., is quashed. Consequent to quashing of FIR,

criminal proceedings pending before learned Additional Chief

Judicial Magistrate, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P., initiated against

petitioners-accused persons in pursuance thereto, are also

quashed.

14. Petition stands disposed of in above terms.

15. Petitioners are permitted to produce a copy of this

.

judgment, downloaded from the web-page of the High Court of

Himachal Pradesh, before the authorities concerned, and the said

authorities shall not insist for production of a certified copy but if

required, may verify it from Website of the High Court.

(Vivek Singh Thakur), Judge.

August 17, 2021 (Purohit)