Aarti Soni vs State Of H.P.& Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 1182 HP

                                                         1

     IN      THE         HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL                                         PRADESH,
                                 SHIMLA

                                                                         Cr.MMO No.393 of 2020




                                                                                .

                                                                  Date of Decision: 23.02.2021
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Aarti Soni                                                                       .....Petitioner





                                                 Versus

    State of H.P.& another                                                           .... Respondent





    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Coram
    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
    Whether approved for reporting1?

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    For the Petitioner:                 Ms. Meera Devi, Advocate.

    For the Respondents:                Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar and Mr. Arvind Sharma,
                                        Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Kunal
                                        Thakur, Deputy Advocate General, for
                                        respondent No.1/State.



                                        Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Motta, Advocate for
                                        respondent No.2.
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




    Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

By way of instant petition filed under Section 482 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for

quashing of FIR No 29 of 2016, dated 4.4.2016 under Sections 341, 323, 506

and 34 of IPC, registered at police Station Baijnath, District Kangra,

Himachal Pradesh as well as consequent proceedings, if any, pending

adjudication in the competent Court of law, on the basis of the compromise

arrived inter se parties (Annexure P-2).

1Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment?

2. Precisely, the facts of the case as emerge from the record are

that the FIR No. 29 of 2016, sought to be quashed in the instant

.

proceedings, came to be lodged at the behest of respondent No.2, namely,

Sh. Sukhvinder Singh Soni, alleging therein that on 4.4.2016, petitioner

Aarti Soni with the help and aid of other family members not only ousted

him from the house, but also gave beatings. In the aforesaid background,

police registered the case against the petitioner under Sections 341, 323,

506 and 34 of IPC and after completion of the investigation filed the challan

in the competent court of law, however fact remains that till date charges

have been not framed. Since during the pendency of the challan before the

competent court of law petitioner and respondent No.2/complainant have

entered into the compromise with each other, petition at hand has been

filed before this Court, praying therein for quashment of FIR as well as

consequent proceedings, if any, pending in the competent Court of law.

3. On 23.12.2020, this Court having taken note of the averments

contained in the petition as well as compromise placed on record (Annexure

P-2), deemed it necessary to cause presence of respondent/complainant No.2

in the Court, so that correctness and genuineness of the compromise placed

on record could be ascertained. Besides above, this Court also directed

learned Additional Advocate General to verify the aforesaid factum of

compromise, if any, interse parties from the police station concerned.

4. Pursuant to aforesaid order, respondent No.2/complainant has

come present in Court and is being represented by Mr. Sanjeev Kumar

Motta, Advocate. Respondent No.2/complainant states on oath before this

Court that he of his own volition and without there being any external

.

pressure has entered into the compromise with the petitioner, whereby both

the parties have resolved to settle their dispute amicably interse them and

as such, they shall have no objection in case FIR lodged by them against

each other are ordered to be quashed alongwith consequential proceedings,

if any, pending in the competent Court of law. Their statements are taken

on record.

5. Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar, learned Additional Advocate General

after having heard the aforesaid statement made by respondent No.2/

complainant fairly states that no fruitful purpose would be served in case

FIR as well as consequent proceedings sought to be quashed are allowed to

sustain and as such, respondent-State shall have no objection in case the

prayer made in the petitions is allowed.

6. This Court, after having carefully perused the compromise,

which has been duly effected between the parties, sees substantial force in

the prayer having been made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that

offences in the instant case can be ordered to be compounded.

7. Since the petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C, this

Court deems it fit to consider the present petition in the light of the

judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Narinder Singh and others

versus State of Punjab and another (2014)6 Supreme Court Cases

466, whereby Hon'ble Apex Court has formulated guidelines for accepting

the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the

settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings.

.

Perusal of judgment referred above clearly depicts that in para 29.1,

Hon'ble Apex Court has returned the findings that 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 to be as under:-

29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between

the parties and exercising 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 the criminal proceedings:

29.1Power 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 to be exercised sparingly and with caution.

29.2. 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 under Section 482 Cr.P.C the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.

29.3. 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

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.

29.4. On the other, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominantly 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.

29.5. 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.

29.6. 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.

29.7. 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".

8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case Gian Singh v.State of

Punjab and anr. (2012) 10 SCC 303 has 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.PC. Even

in the judgment passed in Narinder Singh's case, the Hon'ble Apex Court

has held that while exercising inherent power under Section 482 Cr.PC the

Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime and its

social impact and it cautioned the Courts not to exercise the power for

quashing proceedings in heinous and serious offences of mental depravity,

murder, rape, dacoity etc. However subsequently, the Hon'ble Apex Court

in Dimpey Gujral and Ors. vs. Union Territory through

Administrator, UT, Chandigarh and Ors. (2013( 11 SCC 497 has also

held as under:-

.

"7. In certain decisions of this Court in view of the settlement

arrived at by the parties, this Court quashed the FIRs though some of the offences were non-compoundable. A two Judges' Bench of this court doubted the correctness of those decisions. Learned Judges felt that in those decisions, this court had

permitted compounding of non-compoundable offences. The said issue was, therefore, referred to a larger bench.

The larger Bench in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 considered the relevant provisions of the Code and the

judgments of this court and concluded as under: (SCC pp. 342- 43, para 61)

61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in r exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for

compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of

any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and

no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the

nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and se serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of

Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise

between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and

.

complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In

other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of

the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its

jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding." (emphasis supplied)

8. In the light of the above observations of this court in Gian Singh, we feel that this is a case where the continuation of criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of

law because the alleged offences are not heinous offences

showing extreme depravity nor are they against the society. They are offences of a personal nature and burying them would bring about peace and amity between the two sides. In the circumstances of the case, FIR No. 163 dated 26.10.2006 registered under Section 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 452 and 506 of

the IPC at Police Station Sector 3, Chandigarh and all consequential proceedings arising there from including the final report presented under Section 173 of the Code and charges framed by the trial Court are hereby quashed."

9. Recently Hon'ble Apex Court in its latest judgment dated 4th

October, 2017, titled as Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai

Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others versus State of Gujarat and

Another, passed in Criminal Appeal No.1723 of 2017 arising out of

SLP(Crl) No.9549 of 2016, reiterated the principles/ parameters laid down

in Narinder Singh's case supra for accepting the settlement and

quashing the proceedings. It would be profitable to reproduce para No. 13 to

15 of the judgment herein:

"13. The same principle was followed in Central Bureau of Investigation v. Maninder Singh (2016)1 SCC 389 by a bench of

two learned Judges of this Court. In that case, the High Court had, in the exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 quashed proceedings under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 read with Section 120-B of the Penal Code. While allowing the appeal filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation Mr Justice Dipak Misra (as the

.

learned Chief Justice then was) observed that the case involved

allegations of forgery of documents to embezzle the funds of the bank. In such a situation, the fact that the dispute had been settled with the bank would not justify a recourse to the power under

Section 482:

"...In economic offences Court must not only keep in view that money has been paid to the bank which has been defrauded but also the society at large. It is not a case of

simple assault or a theft of a trivial amount; but the offence with which we are concerned is well planned and was committed with a deliberate design with an eye of personal profit regardless of consequence to the society at large. To quash the proceeding merely on the ground that the r accused has settled the amount with the bank would be a misplaced sympathy. If the prosecution against the

economic offenders are not allowed to continue, the entire community is aggrieved."

14. In a subsequent decision in State of Tamil Nadu v R

Vasanthi Stanley (2016) 1 SCC 376, the court rejected the submission that the first respondent was a woman "who was following the command of her husband" and had signed certain

documents without being aware of the nature of the fraud which was being perpetrated on the bank. Rejecting the submission, this

Court held that:

"... Lack of awareness, knowledge or intent is neither to be considered nor accepted in economic offences. The submission assiduously presented on gender leaves us unimpressed. An offence under the criminal law is an offence and it does not depend upon the gender of an accused. True it is, there are certain provisions in Code of Criminal Procedure relating to exercise of jurisdiction Under Section 437, etc. therein but that altogether pertains to a different sphere. A person committing a murder or getting involved in a financial scam or forgery of documents, cannot claim discharge or acquittal on the ground of her gender as that is neither constitutionally nor statutorily a valid argument. The offence is gender neutral in this case. We say no more on this score..."

"...A grave criminal offence or serious economic offence or for that matter the offence that has the potentiality to create a dent in the financial health of the institutions, is not to be quashed on the ground that there is delay in trial or the principle that when the matter has been settled it should be

.

quashed to avoid the load on the system..."

15.The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject may be summarized in the following propositions:

(i) Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognizes and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court;

(ii) The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a First Information Report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the r invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an

offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non- compoundable.

(iii) In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the

ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power;

(iv) While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any

court;

(v) The decision as to whether a complaint or First Information Report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated;

(vi) In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has bee inherent n settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute.

Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences;

.

(vii) As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing in so far as the

exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned;

(viii) Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transac mental tions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have

settled the dispute;

(ix) In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the r continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression

and prejudice; and

(x) There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions (viii) and (ix) above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the state have

implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or

misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance.

10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in (2019) 5 SCC 688, titled as State

of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan , has held as under:-

" 15 . Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of this Court on the point, referred to hereinabove, it is observed and held as under:

15.1 That the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and

when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves;

15.2. Such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved 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;

15.3 Similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences

under the special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the 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; 15.4 Offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act etc. would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and

therefore are to be treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal proceedings for the offence under Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act etc. which have a serious impact on the society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 of rthe Code, on the ground that the parties have resolved their

entire dispute amongst themselves. 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 framing 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. However, such an exercise by the High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is

collected after investigation and the charge sheet is filed/charge is framed and/or during the trial. Such exercise is not permissible when the matter is still under investigation.

Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in paragraphs 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in the case of Narinder Singh (supra) should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove;

15.5 While exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non- compoundable offences, which are private in nature and do not have a serious impart on society, on the ground that there is a settlement/ compromise between the victim and the offender, the High Court is required to consider the antecedents of the accused; the conduct of the accused, namely, whether the accused was absconding and why he was absconding, how he had managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise etc.

11. It is quite apparent from the aforesaid exposition of law that

High Court has inherent power to quash criminal proceedings even in those

.

cases which are not compoundable, but such power is to be exercised

sparingly and with great caution. In the judgments, referred hereinabove,

Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically held that Court while exercising

inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. must have due regard to the

nature and gravity of offence sought to be compounded. Hon'ble Apex Court

has though held that heinous and serious offences of mental depravity,

murder, rape, dacoity etc. cannot appropriately be quashed though the

victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute, but it has also

observed that while exercising its powers, 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. Hon'ble Apex Court has further held that Court while exercising

power under Section 482 Cr.P.C can also be swayed by the fact that

settlement between the parties is going to result in harmony between them

which may improve their future relationship. Hon'ble Apex Court in its

judgment rendered in State of Tamil Nadu supra, has reiterated that

Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an

abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice and has

held that the power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the

offence is non-compoundable. In the aforesaid judgment Hon'ble Apex Court

has held that while forming an opinion whether a criminal proceedings or

complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section

.

482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify

the exercise of the inherent power.

12. In the case at hand also, offences alleged to have been

committed by the petitioners do not involve offences of moral turpitude or

any grave/heinous crime, rather same are petty offences, as such, this Court

deems it appropriate to quash the FIR as well as consequential proceedings

thereto, especially keeping in view the fact that the petitioners and

respondent No.2 have compromised the matter interse them, in which case,

possibility of conviction is remote and no fruitful purpose would be served

in continuing with the criminal proceedings.

13. Since the matter stands compromised between the parties and

respondent No.2 is no more interested in pursuing the criminal proceedings

against the petitioners, no fruitful purpose would be served in case

proceedings initiated at the behest of respondent No.2 are allowed to

continue, as such, prayer made in the petition at hand can be accepted.

14. Consequently, in view of the averments contained in the

petition as well as the submissions having been made by the learned

counsel for the parties that the matter has been compromised, and keeping

in mind the well settled proposition of law as well as the compromise being

genuine, this Court has no inhibition in accepting the compromise and

quashing the FIR as well as consequent proceedings pending in the

competent Court of law.

.

15. Accordingly, in view of the detailed discussion made

hereinabove as well as law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, FIR No.

29 of 2016, dated 4.4.2016 under Sections 341, 323, 506 and 34 of IPC,

registered at police Station Baijnath, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh as

well as consequent proceedings, if any, pending adjudication in the

competent Court of law, are quashed and set-aside. Needless to say, both

the parties would take appropriate steps for dissolution of their marriage in

accordance with law in terms of compromise placed on record and both the

parties shall have right to meet their children any time in terms of settled

terms and conditions.

16. The present petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending

application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

Copy dasti.

    23rd February, 2021                                          (Sandeep Sharma),





          (shankar)                                                  Judge