Shri Singhi Ram vs 5 Quashing Of Fir In Present ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 3991 HP

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.




                                                       .
                  ON THE 18th DAY OF AUGUST, 2021





                             BEFORE
             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIVEK SINGH THAKUR
     CRIMINAL MISC.PETITION (MAIN) U/S 482 CR.PC NO.301 OF





                               2021
    Between:-





    SHRI SINGHI RAM,
    S/O SHRI KALU RAM,
    R/O D-5, STRAWBERRY HILLS,
    CHOTTA SHIMLA, H.P.                                    ...PETITIONER

    (BY SH. B.N. SHARMA, ADVOCATE)

    AND
    1. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
       THROUGH SECRETARY (HOME)


       TO THE GOVERNMENT OF HIMACHAL
        PRADESH, SHIMLA

    2. MS. RICHA VEKTA




       D/O SHRI SOHAN LAL,
       EARLIER RESIDING AT GIAN BHAVAN





       PLOT NO.3 AND 4, TYPE-B, PHASE-1,
       NEW SHIMLA, TEHSIL AND DISTT.
       SHIMLA, H.P. PRESENTLY R/O VILL.
       NANGAL DEVI, NEAR NAVODYA





       SCHOOL, THEOG, DISTT.SHIMLA HP                   ...RESPONDENTS
    (BY SH. RAJU RAM RAHI, DEPUTY ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR R-
    1)
    (RESPONDENT NO.2 IS PRESENT IN PERSON)
    Whether approved for reporting?




                                      ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 22:54:23 :::CIS
                                      2




    This Petition coming on for orders this day, Hon'ble Mr.Justice Vivek
    Singh Thakur, delivered the following:




                                                                 .

                                 JUDGMENT

Present petition has been filed for quashing of

FIR No. 23 of 2021 dated 11.4.2021 registered under

Sections 354 and 504 of Indian Penal Code at P.S. New

Shimla, Tehsil and District Shimla H.P.

    2.           Petitioner/accused
                     r                   and    respondent          No.     2-

complainant are present in Court, who are duly identified

by their counsel. Their statements on oath have also been

recorded.

3. Vide separate statement, recorded on oath,

complainant/respondent No.2 has stated that FIR No. 23 of

2021 dated 11.4.2021 was lodged by her against the

petitioner, whereas FIR No. 22 of 2021 dated 10.04.2021

was lodged by petitioner against her father and others. She

has further stated that now the matter has been amicably

settled between them and, therefore, they have entered

into the compromise and as per compromise, they have

agreed to withdraw the complaints filed against each other

and as a matter of fact, petition i.e. Cr.MMO No. 342 of

2020 titled Sohan Lal and another vs. State of HP filed for

.

quashing FIR No. 22 of 2012 also stands allowed and that

FIR has been quashed. It is also stated by her that in view

of compromise, arrived at between them, she also wants to

withdraw the complaint in present case and she and her

family do not want to continue with criminal proceedings

against the petitioner and in that regard, the compromise

deed is Annexure P-3. She has also stated that she has

made the statement in Court out of her free will, consent

and also without any kind of threat, coercion or pressure

etc.

4 The petitioner/accused, in his statement, has

also endorsed the statement of complainant as true and

correct. It is also stated by him that his deposition in Court

is out of his free will and also without any threat, coercion or

pressure etc. and prayed for disposal of present petition in

terms of compromise.

5 Quashing of FIR in present petition has been

prayed on the basis of compromise arrived at between the

parties, photocopy whereof has been placed on record,

which is duly signed by parties. Both parties i.e. petitioner

as well as respondent No.2 have endorsed the compromise.

.

6 In the present case, complainant-respondent

No.2 is the daughter of Shri Sohan Lal, against whom the

petitioner has also lodged the cross FIR No. 22 of 2021 and

for quashing the same, another petition Cr.MMO No. 342 of

2021 has been filed by Shri Sohan Lal. That petition also

stands allowed and FIR No. 22 of 2021 lodged by petitioner,

has been quashed and dispute, alleged to have been

occurred for certain differences, now stands settled.

7 It is contended on behalf of respondent-State

that accused is 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

an offence not compoundable under Section 320 Cr.PC.

8 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.

.

9 The Apex Court in Parbatbhai Aahir alias

Parbathbhai 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

provisions of Section 320 Cr.P.C.

r are not

The Apex Court in case Narinder Singh and inhibited by

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.

11 No doubt Sections 354 IPC is compoundable

only with the permission of Court. 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 CrPC, 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.

12 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.

13 In present case, there is a dispute between the

parties on account of differences and cross FIRs were

.

registered at the instance of both parties, but now as

petitioner has also withdrawn his complaint and settled the

dispute amicably, I find that it is a fit case to exercise

power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and further even otherwise

if criminal proceedings are allowed to continue, no fruitful

purpose is going to be served.

14 to Further, offence in question does not fall in the

category of offences prohibited for compounding in terms

of the pronouncements of the Apex Court by exercising

power under Section 482 of the CrPC.

15 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. 23 of 2021, dated 11.4.2021,

registered at Police Station, New Shimla, Tehsil and District

Shimla, H.P. is quashed. Consequent to quashing of FIR,

criminal proceedings if initiated against accused in

pursuance thereto, are also quashed.

Petition stands disposed of in above terms.

.

    August 18,2021                  (Vivek Singh Thakur)





    (ms)                                   Judge





                r         to