Himachal Pradesh High Court
Sirmour vs Unknown on 7 December, 2021
Bench: Vivek Singh Thakur
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
ON THE 7nd DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIVEK SINGH THAKUR
CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION (MAIN) U/S 482 CRPC No. 479 of 2021
BETWEEN:-
GULNAZ D/O SHRI TASIN R/O
VILLAGE KUNJA MATRALION,
TEHSIL PAONTA SAHIB, DISTRICT
SIRMOUR, H.P. ....PETITIONER
(BY SH. AMRINDER SINGH RANA, ADVOCATE.)
AND
1. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
(HOME) TO THE GOVERNMENT OF
HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA-2.
2. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
DISTRICT SIRMOUR, H.P.
3. SMT. NAJVUN NISHA W/O SH.
SHAMIM.
4. SMT.SHABANA D/O SH. SHAMIM.
5. SMT. SHABNAM D/O SH. SHAMIM.
6. MUNIR AHMED S/O SH. SHAMIM
ALL RESIDENTS OF KASIMPUR,
POST OFFICE RAIPUR, TEHSIL
BEHAT, DISTRICT SAHARANPUR
(U.P).
7. RUBY D/O MOHD ALIM RESIDENT
OF INDRA COLONY, TEHSIL BEHAT
DISTRICT SHARANPUR U.P.
8. SHEHJNAZ D/O SH. SHAMIM
RESIDENT OF KASIMPUR, POST
OFFICE RAIPUR, TEHSIL BEHAT, ....RESPONDENTS
DISTRICT SAHARANPUR (U.P).
(BY SH. ANIL JASWAL,
ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL
FOR RESPONDENTS NO. 1 AND 2.)
(BY Mr. ASHOK KUMAR, ADVOCATE,
FOR RESPODNENTS NO. 3 to 8.)
Whether approved for Reporting?
::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:24:01 :::CIS
2 Cr.MMO No. 479 of 2021
This petition coming on for admission this day, the Court
delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
.
The instant petition, under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.PC'), has been filed by
petitioner Gulnaz, on the basis of compromise arrived at between her
and respondents No. 3 to 8 Najvun Nisha, Shabana, Shabnam, Munir
Ahmed, Ruby and Shehnaz for quashing of FIR No. No. 81 of 2018,
dated 10.4.2018, registered in Police Station Paonta Sahib District
Sirmour, H.P., under Sections 147, 149, 323 and 324 of the Indian Penal
Code (in short 'IPC') and consequent proceedings arising thereto.
2. Petitioner Gulnaz as well as respondents No. 3 to 8 Najvun
Nisha, Shabana, Shabnam, Munir Ahmed, Ruby and Shehnaz are
present in the Court today (7.12.2021). They have been duly identified
by their respective counsel. Their statements, on oath, have been
recorded separately.
3. In her statement, complainant-petitioner Gulnaz has stated
that respondents/accused Najvun Nisha, Shabana, Shabnam, Munir
Ahmed, Ruby and Shehnaz are distantly related to her and now they
have expressed remorse for their act and by the intervention of elders,
matter has been compromised and, therefore, she has decided not to
pursue her complaint. Thus she has prayed for permission to withdraw
the complaint for quashing the FIR. She has further stated that she
has deposed in this Court, out of her free will, consent and without any
external pressure, coercion or threat of any kind.
4. In their joint statement, respondents No. 3 to 8 Najvun
Nisha, Shabana, Shabnam, Munir Ahmed, Ruby and Shehnaz have
endorsed the statement of petitioner/complainant Gulnaz to be true and
correct and have undertaken not to repeat such incident in future. They
.
have further stated that they have deposed in this Court, out of their free
will, consent and without any external pressure, coercion or threat of any
kind.
5. It is contended on behalf of respondent No.1-State that
petitioner/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.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
7. to
does not extend to crimes against society.
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.
9. No doubt Sections 147 and 324 of IPC are not
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. 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.
12. 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. 81 of 2018, dated
10.4.2018, registered in Police Station Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour,
H.P. is quashed. Consequent to quashing of FIR, criminal proceedings
pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Court No. 1, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour, H.P. initiated against
petitioner-accused in pursuance thereto, are also quashed.
13. Petition stands disposed of in above terms, so also pending
applications, if any.
.
14. Petitioner is 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.
th
7 December, 2021
(Keshav)
r to (Vivek Singh Thakur),
Judge.
