Himachal Pradesh High Court
Kishor Chand vs State Of H.P. And Others on 3 March, 2021
Bench: Vivek Singh Thakur
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr.MMO No. 350 of 2020.
.
Date of decision: 3.3.2021.
Kishor Chand. .....Petitioner.
Versus
State of H.P. and others. ..... Respondents.
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the Petitioner: Mr.Jai Ram Sharma, Advocate.
r Petitioner present in person.
For the Respondents: Mr.Raju Ram Rahi, Deputy Advocate
General, for respondent No. 1.
Mr.Bhuvnesh Sharma, Advocate, for
respondents No. 2 to 4.
Respondent No. 2 Sanjeev Sharma present
in person.
Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge (Oral).
This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
has been filed by the petitioners for quashing of FIR No. 107 of 2019 dated
5.10.2019, registered at Police Station, Nadaun, District Hamirpur, H.P., under
Section 279 IPC and consequential proceedings, if any.
2. Petitioner as well as respondent No.2 are present in the Court
and identified as such by their respective counsel(s). It was jointly stated by
learned counsel for the parties that the parties have amicably settled the
matter and respondent No.2 now does not want to pursue this case against
the petitioner.
3. Respondent No. 2 Sanjeev Sharma in his statement has deposed that,
two cross FIRs were registered in the Police Station, one was lodged by
Kishore Chand petitioner and another is present one, which was lodged by
him and now matter stands amicably settled and in terms of compromise FIR
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes
lodged by Kishor Chand petitioner stands quashed by this High Court vide
order dated 25.11.2020 passed in Cr.MMO No. 351 of 2020 and in turn he
.
also does not intend to continue criminal proceedings against the petitioner.
He after perusing copy of compromise, has endorsed his signatures thereon,
on the photocopy of compromise placed on record as Annexure P-3. He has
further stated that he has entered into compromise and also deposing today,
out of his free will, consent and also without any external pressure, coercion
or threat of any kind.
4.
Petitioner in his statement has endorsed the statement made by
complainant Sanjeev Sharma (respondent No. 2) to be true and correct and
has identified his signature on the compromise and has further stated that he
has entered into and signed the compromise out of his free will and without
any threat, coercion or pressure.
5. It is contended on behalf of respondent-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. It is apt to record herein that a three Judges Bench of the Apex
Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Others 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.P.C., 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.P.C. 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.
7. 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 are not inhibited by provisions of Section 320 Cr.P.C.
8. The Apex Court in case Narinder Singh and Ors. 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 279 IPC is 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 Cr.P.C. and FIR as well as criminal proceedings can
.
be quashed by exercising inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.PC, if it is
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.
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. Offence in question, for material on record, does not fall in the
category of offences termed to be prohibited, in the pronouncements of Apex
Court, to be compounded exercising power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
12. Keeping in view the ratio of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
Court and considering facts of case in its entirety, I am of considered view that
it is a fit case for allowing the petition. Therefore, matter is permitted to be
compounded. Consequently, FIR No. 107 of 2019, dated 5.10.2019,
registered at Police Station Nadaun, District Hamirpur, H.P., is quashed.
Consequent to quashing of FIR No. 107 of 2019, criminal proceedings, if any,
arising consequent thereto also stand quashed.
13. Petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so also
pending applications, if any.
Copy Dasti.
3rd March, 2021 (Vivek Singh Thakur),
(Keshav) Judge.
