Himachal Pradesh High Court
Bhola Singh vs Unknown on 6 December, 2021
Bench: Ajay Mohan Goel
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
ON THE 6th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
.
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY MOHAN GOEL
CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION (MAIN) U/S 482 CRPC No. 346 OF 2021
Between:-
1. BHOLA SINGH S/O SH. SARWAN
SINGH RO VILLAGE ISPUR,
TEHSIL HAROLI, DISTRICT UNA
(HP). AGE 32 YEARS.
2. SATYAM JOSHI S/O RAJESH
JOSHI R/O V.P.O KUNGRAT,
TEHSIL HAROLI DISTRICT UNA
(HP).
3. SUNIL KUMAR S/O TILAK RAJ
R/O V.P.O AJAULI, TEHSIL
NANGAL, DISTRICT ROPAR
(PB).
4. LAKHBIR SINGH S/O BACHITER
SINGH R/O VILLAGE PUNA PO
SANOLI,TEHSIL AND DISTRICT
UNA (HP).
5. RAGHAV CHOUDHARY S/O
SURINDER SINGH R/O V.P.O
KALITRAN, TEHSIL AND
DISTRICT ROPAR (PB).
6. RAHUL CHOUDHARY S/O
JATINDER KUMAR R/O V.P.O
KALITRAN, TEHSIL AND
DISTRICT ROPAR (PB).
7. AVTAR SINGH S/O BALDEV
SINGH R/O VILLAGE SOLERAN
::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:23:42 :::CIS
2
PO CHOHALTEHSIL AND
DISTRICT HOSHIARPUR (PB).
8. SHUBHAM S/O MOHAN LAL R/O
.
V.P.O PALASI TEHSIL ,NANGAL
DISTRICT RUPNAGAR (PB).
9. NITIN MODGIL S/O DAVINDER
MODGIL R/O V.P.O BAINSPUR
TEHSIL NANGAL DISTRICT
RUPNAGAR (PB).
10. SUNNY KUMAR S/O BALWINDER
SINGH R/O VILAAGE
DHUMEWAL P.O TEHSIL,
ANANDPUR SAHIB, DISTRICT
RUPNAGAR (PB).
11. ROHIT KUMAR S/O RAJINDER
KUMAR R/O V.P.O CHOTEWAL,
TEHSIL NNAGAL, DISTRICT
RUPNAGAR (PB)
12. RAVI KUMAR S/o RAJ KUMAR
R/o V.P.O MAUJOWAL, TEHSIL
NANGAL, DISTRICT RUPNAGAR
(PB).
13. GURBHAG SINGH S/O KARNAIL
NANGAL DISTRICT RUPNAGAR
(PB)
14. GURPREET SINGH S/O
WARIRAM SINGH R/O V.P.O
BEHLU TEHSIL ANANDPUR
SAHIB, DISTRICT RUPNAGAR
(PB).
15. AMANDEEP SINGH S/O
SUKHDEV SINGH R/O V.P.O
BHATOLI, TEHSIL KIRATPUR
SAHIB, DISTRICT RUPNAGAR
(PB).
..........PETITIONERS
::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:23:42 :::CIS
3
(BY MR. ANUP RATTAN, ADVOCATE)
AND
.
THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,
........RESPONDENTS
(M/S SUMESH RAJ, ADARSH SHARMA AND
SANJEEV SOOD, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE
GENERALS WITH MR. KAMAL KANT
CHANDEL, DEPUTY ADVOCATE GENERAL)
___________________________________________________________
Whether approved for reporting: Yes
This petition coming on for orders this day, the Court
passed the following:-
ORDER
By way of this petition filed under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners have prayed for
quashing of FIR No. 104 of 2019, dated 26.04.2019, registered
at Police Station Haroli, District Una, HP, under Sections 147,
148, 323, 342, 307, 364, 504, 506, 120-B read with Section 149
of the Indian Penal Code, as well as ensuing criminal
proceedings, pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge
(II), Una, District Una, H.P.
2. Mr. Anup Rattan, learned Counsel for the petitioners
has argued that the issue, which led to the filing of the FIR, now
stands settled amicably between the accused, the complainant
as well as the injured/victim. He informed the Court that this is
a joint petition, which has been filed by the complainant, victim
.
as well as accused. He submitted that taking into consideration
the background, in which the unfortunate incident took place
and the fact that now the matter stands amicably settled
between the parties, it will be in the interest of justice, in case,
this petition is allowed and the FIR in issue as well as ensuing
criminal proceedings pending in the Court of learned Additional
Sessions Judge(II), Una, H.P. are quashed as the parties now
intend to live in peace and harmony with each other. He has
drawn the attention of the Court to the compromise entered into
between the parties, copy of which is appended with the petition
as Annexure P-3.
3. Mr. Sumesh Raj, learned Additional Advocate
General, has argued that though the factum of the matter
having been compromised between the complainant as well as
victim and accused is not in dispute but taking into
consideration the sections involved, under which the FIR stands
registered against the accused, this is not a fit case wherein this
Court should exercise its inherent powers so conferred under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and it will be in
the interest of justice, in case, the trial is permitted to continue
and taken to its conclusion. He submitted that gravity of the
offences does not entail the accused/petitioners for the relief,
.
which they are seeking by way of this petition.
4. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioners as
well as learned Additional Advocate General and also gone
through the petition as well as documents appended therewith,
including the compromise deed Annexure P-3.
5. Before proceeding further, it is relevant to mention
that on 26.11.2021, the complainant Shri Bhola Singh and
injured/victim Sh. Avtar Singh, were present in person in the
Court and they have made separate statement on oath that they
have no objection, in case, this petition is allowed as prayed for
and the FIR in issue as well as ensuing criminal proceedings,
pending before the learned Court below, are ordered to be
quashed. The sections of Indian Penal Code under which the FIR
in issue has been registered are already enumerated
hereinabove.
6. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Narinder Singh
and Others vs. State of Punjab and Another, (2014) 6
Supreme Court Cases 466, has been pleased to hold that the
power conferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure has to be exercised sparingly and with caution.
Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold that when the
parties have reached the settlement, and on that basis, petition
.
for quashing the criminal proceedings, is filed, the guiding
factors in such cases would be to (i) secure ends of justice; and
(ii) prevent abuse of the process of any Court. Hon'ble Supreme
Court has further been pleased to hold that while exercising this
power, the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the
aforesaid two objectives. It has further been held in the said
judgment by Hon'ble Supreme Court that such a power is not to
be exercised in those prosecutions, which involve heinous and
serious offences. As per the Hon'ble Supreme Court, offences
under Section 307 would fall in the category of heinous and
serious offences, and therefore, are to be generally treated as
crime against the society and not against the individual alone
but the High Court would not rest its decision merely because
there is a mention of Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code in the
FIR or the charge is framed under this provision and it would be
open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation
of Section 307 of 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/delicate
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. Hon'ble Supreme Court has further been pleased
to hold that 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.
7. Guided by said principles laid down by Hon'ble
Supreme Court, now this Court will see as to whether present
one is a fit case wherein this Court should exercise its inherent
power conferred upon it under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure for quashing the FIR or not. The FIR in issue
is appended with the petition as Annexure P-2. The same is
dated 05.05.2019, whereas the date of the incident is
26.04.2019. It stands mentioned in the FIR at the behest of the
complainant that the complainant was the owner of the Poultry
Farm, and in his Poultry Farm, which was otherwise not
functioning on 26.04.2019, some person was beaten up by some
unknown persons, which fact came to his notice after about two
days, that too by virtue of a video which stood made viral on
social media. It was mentioned in the FIR that the complainant
had nothing to do with the incident and one person, who was
having Camera in his hand, was being shown in the video, being
beaten up by five or more persons. It is on the basis of this
.
statement that FIR in issue was registered under Sections, 147,
148, 149, 323, 308, 342 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code.
8. It appears from the documents on record that Section
307 of IPC was subsequently incorporated against the accused
on the basis of investigation which was carried out in the case.
There is also on record medical report of the victim Shri Avtar
Singh, dated 26.04.2019, which is appended with the petition as
Annexure P-4, wherein it is mentioned that duration of the
injuries was more than 12 hours. In terms of the opinion given
by Doctor, the injuries suffered by the victim were simple and
there were no external injuries on the body of the victim. During
the course of hearing of this petition, this Court was informed
that the incident took place on account of some
misunderstanding between the parties which had occured on the
basis of renting out of one Camera through OLX. A perusal of
the medical report demonstrates that the injuries suffered by the
injured were simple and not grievous in nature. Besides this, no
external injuries were found by the Doctor on the body of the
injured/ victim. Initially the FIR, which was registered, was not
under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and this section has
been subsequently added. During the course of arguments, this
Court has not found any material from which it could be prima
.
facie concluded that the beatings were given to the injured on
any vital part of the body or any such weapon was used so as to
attract the provisions of 307 of the IPC. The above facts thus
demonstrate that though the accused have been charged under
Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, but from the facts of the
case, it can be safely concluded that strong possibility of
conviction does not exists especially in view of the statement of
the complainant as well as the injured/victim. Further, taking
into consideration the nature of the dispute, which was there
between the parties, this Court is of the considered view that it
would be in the ends of justice, in case, this Court exercises
powers so conferred upon it under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure and quashes the FIR in issue as well as
ensuing criminal proceedings as the matter now stands
compromised.
9. Accordingly, in view of above, this petition is allowed
and FIR No. 104 of 2019, dated 26.04.2019, registered at Police
Station Haroli, District Una, HP, under Sections 147, 148, 323,
342, 307, 364, 504, 506, 120-B read with Section 149 of the
Indian Penal Code, as well as ensuing criminal proceedings,
pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (II), Una,
District Una, H.P., are ordered to be quashed and set aside,
.
taking into consideration the compromise entered between the
parties. Statement made by the complainant as well as the
injured/victim on oath on 26.11.2021, in this Court, which shall
form part of the judgment.
The petition is accordingly disposed of in above
terms, so also pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.
(Ajay Mohan Goel)
r Judge
December 06, 2021
(narender)
