Himachal Pradesh High Court
M/S Mahindra & Mahindra vs Mahindra & Mahindra. Copy Of on 15 December, 2021
Bench: Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Satyen Vaidya
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
ON THE 15th DAY OF DECEMBER 2021
BEFORE
.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATYEN VAIDYA
CIVIL WRIT PETITION No. 6376 of 2021
Between:
1. M/S MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA
FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD.
SH. CHETAN SHARMA, AUTHORIZED
REPRESENTATIVE, M/S MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA
FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD. OFFICE AT
DYERTON BIZ HUB, DYERTON ESTATE
KHALINI, SHIMLA2 H.P.
2. MR. SHANTANU PADHYE,
S/O SH. PRABHAKAR GAJANAN,
BUSINESS HEAD,
M/S MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA FINANCIAL
SERVICES LTD. MAHINDRA TOWER, BWING,
5TH FLOOR, DR. G.M. BHONSALE MARG,
WORLI, MUMBAI400018.
3. MR. SANJEEV CHATURVEDI,
S/O SH. RAMASHANKAR CHATURVEDI
CIRCLE HEAD, M/S HAMINDRA & MAHINDRA
FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD.
4. MR. DEVENDER VERMA,
S/O SH. LIAQ RAM VERMA,
DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
MS/ MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA
FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD.
....PETITIONERS
::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:26:19 :::CIS
-2-
(BY SH. N.S. CHANDEL, SR. ADVOCATE WITH MR. AMEET
S. KANWAR, ADVOCATE) and SH. VINAY GULERIA
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PETITIONER
NO.1.
.
AND
1. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,
THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME
HP SECRETARIAT, CHOTA SHIMLA, H.P.
2. SMT. SONAL SOOD,
W/O SH. BARINDER PAL SINGH BRAR,
PROPRIETOR OF M/S RCSS ASSOCIATES,
R/O A1/03, GROUND FLOOR, DLF VALLEY,
PANCHKULA, PRESENTLY R/O NARAINI,
TEH. KASAULI, DISTT. SOLAN, H.P.
...RESPONDENTS.
(MR. ASHOK SHARMA, ADVOCATE GENERAL WITH MR.
RAJINDER DOGRA, SR. ADDL. A.G, AND MR. VINOD
THAKUR & MR. SHIV PAL MANHANS ADDL. A.GS.
MR. AND MR. BHUPINDER THAKUR, DY. A.G. FOR R1).
(SH. C.N. SINGH, ADVOCATE, FOR R2.) ALONG WITH SMT.
SONAL SOOD, RESPONDENT NO.2.
This petition coming on for orders this day, Hon'ble Mr.
Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, passed the following:
ORDER
The instant petition has been filed with the following
substantive reliefs:
"i) Quash the FIR No. 26 of 2021 dated
23.3.2021, P.S. Parwanoo, Distt. Solan and
proceedings emanating there from and/or
ii) Quash and set aside the order dated
18.3.2021 passed by Ld. ACJM Kasauli in
Case No. 37/42021, and/or."
.
2. On 10.11.2021, this Court had passed the following
orders:
"It is jointly stated by learned counsel for the parties
that the parties are trying to amicably settle the
matter. At their joint request, matter is adjourned to
08.12.2021."
3. Thereafter, when the matter came up on 8.12.2021,
this Court passed the following orders:
"Mr. Santosh Rathore, representative of M/s
Mahindra & Mahindra financial Services Ltd and
Ms. Sonal Sood, respondent No.2 are present in the
Court. Reply on behalf of respondent No.1 has been
file in Court, which is taken on record.
The parties jointly pray for and is
granted one week time to explore the possibility of
an amicable settlement. List on 15.12.2021."
4. Today, the parties at contest are present with
compromise agreement, which indicates that the parties have
amicably settled the dispute and in terms thereof, second party
has no objection if the FIR No. 26 of 2021 dated 20.3.2021,
registered at Police Station Parwanoo, District Solan, H.P.
under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 474 and 34 IPC
.
pertaining to Agreement No. 4184007 being quashed. She
has also undertaken to withdraw the Civil Suit No. 50 of 2020,
pending for 17.12.2021, in the Court of Civil Judge, Kasauli
titled as RCSS Associates Vs. Mahindra & Mahindra. Copy of
the compromise deed is ordered to be taken on record.
5.
Now, the moot question is whether the Court in
such like cases can quash the proceedings.
r The law on this
subject has been summed up in a judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Narinder Singh & Ors. V. State of Punjab &
Anr. JT 2014 (4) SC 573, wherein it was held as under:
"(I) Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be
distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to
compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No
doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has
inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in
those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties
have settled the matter between themselves. However, this
power is t to be exercised sparingly and with caution.
(II) When the parties have reached the settlement and on
that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is
filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:
(i) ends of justice, or
(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court.
While exercising the power the High Court is to form an
opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.
(III) Such a power is not be exercised in those prosecutions
.
which involve heinous and serious offences of mental
depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such
offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact
on society. Similarly, for offences alleged to have been
committed under special statute like the Prevention of
Corruption Act or the of offences committed by Public
Servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed
merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the
offender.
(IV) On the other, those criminal cases having
overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character,
particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or
arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes
should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire
disputes among themselves.
(V) While exercising its powers, the High Court is to
examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote
and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put the
accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme
injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the
criminal cases.
(VI) Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the
category of heinous and serious offences and therefore is to be
generally treated as crime against the society and not against
the individual alone. However, the High Court would not rest
its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307
IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It
would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether
incorporation of Section 307 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/delegate 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. 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.
In the former case it can refuse to accept the settlement and
quash the criminal proceedings whereas in the later case it
would be permissible for the High Court to accept the plea
compounding the offence based on complete settlement
between the parties. At this stage, the Court can also be
swayed by the fact that the settlement between the parties is
going to result in harmony between them which may improve
their future relationship.
(VII) While deciding whether to exercise its power under
Section 482 of the Code or not, timings of settlement play a
crucial role. Those cases where the settlement is arrived at
immediately after the alleged commission of offence and the
matter is still under investigation, the High Court may be
liberal in accepting the settlement to quash the criminal
proceedings/investigation. It is because of the reason that at
this stage the investigation is still on and even the charge
sheet has not been filed. Likewise, those cases where the
charge is framed but the evidence is yet to start or the
evidence is still at infancy stage, the High Court can show
benevolence in exercising its powers favourably, but after
prima facie assessment of the circumstances/material
mentioned above. On the other hand, where the prosecution
evidence is almost complete or after the conclusion of the
evidence the matter is at the stage of argument, normally the
High Court should refrain from exercising its power under
Section 482 of the Code, as in such cases the trial court
would be in a position to decide the case finally on merits and
.
to come a conclusion as to whether the offence under Section
307 IPC is committed or not. Similarly, in those cases where
the conviction is already recorded by the trial court and the
matter is at the appellate stage before the High Court, mere
compromise between the parties would not be a ground to
accept the same resulting in acquittal of the offender who has
already been convicted by the trial court. Here charge is
proved under Section 307 IPC and conviction is already
recorded of a heinous crime and, therefore, there is no
question of sparing a convict found guilty of such a crime."
6. It would be seen that prior to Narinder Singh's case
(supra), a three Hon'ble Judges Bench had considered the
relevant scope of Sections 482 and 320 Cr.P.C. in Gian Singh
versus State of Punjab and another (2012) 10 SCC 303 wherein
it was held that power of the High Court in quashing of the
criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint in exercise of its
inherent power is distinct and different from the power of a
Criminal Court for compounding offences under Section 320
Cr.P.C. While exercising inherent power of quashment under
Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court must have due regard to the
nature and gravity of the crime and its social impact. It issued
severe warning that High Court should not quash proceedings
in heinous and serious offences of mental depravity, murder,
rape, dacoity etc. which principles have been reported and
.
reaffirmed in Narinder Singh's case (supra).
7. The principles of governing the powers to the Courts
for quashing the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. would
equally apply to the Courts while exercising its jurisdiction
under Article 226/227 or both of the Constitution of India.
8.
As observed above, the parties have resolved all the
disputes and in furtherance of the compromise, respondent
No.2 not only agree to quash the proceedings but also agreed
to withdraw the suit, pending at Kasauli, then no purpose
would be served by continuing the criminal proceedings but
contrary interest of justice would be served, if the proceedings
in question are quashed and set aside.
9. Having examined the matter in its totality, we are of
the considered view that FIR in the present case deserves to be
quashed and set aside because with the stand of the parties, in
terms of the settlement, there is practically no chance of
recording the conviction, even if the FIR in question is put to
trial. In other words, the entire exercise of trial would only an
exercise in fatality.
10. In view of the aforesaid compromise, the present
petition is allowed and FIR No. 26 of 2021 dated 23.3.2021,
.
registered at Police Station, Parwanoo, District Solan, H.P.
under the aforesaid sections is ordered to be quashed and
proceedings emanating therefrom. Further, Civil Suit No. 50 of
2020 pending between the parties at Kasauli, shall be deemed
to be dismissed, on production of the copy of this order. The
interse them.
r to
parties shall remain bound by the compromise, so recorded
11. In view of the above observations, the instant
petition is disposed of. Pending applications, if any, also stand
disposed of.
(Tarlok Singh Chauhan)
Judge
(Satyen Vaidya)
15th December, 2021 Judge
(kck)
