Sanjay Singh vs State Of H.P.& Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 1860 HP

                                                        1

     IN      THE         HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL                                         PRADESH,
                                 SHIMLA
                                                                          Cr.MMO No.102 of 2021




                                                                                .
                                                                    Date of Decision: 9.03.2021





    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sanjay Singh                                                                     .....Petitioner





                                        Versus

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

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Coram





    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
    Whether approved for reporting1?
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    For the Petitioner:                 Ms. Aruna Chauhan, Advocate.
    For the Respondents:
                          r             Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar and Mr. Arvind Sharma,

                                        Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Kunal
                                        Thakur, Deputy Advocate General, for
                                        respondent No.1/State.
                                        Mr. Abhinav Purohit, 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 170 of 2015, dated 14.09.2015 under

Sections 498-A and 506 of IPC, registered at police Station Palampur,

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.

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 marriage interse respondent No.2/complainant Smt. Ritu

.

Sharma and petitioner was solemnized on 29.4.2013 as per Hindu

Rites and customs, but since certain differences cropped up interse

respondent No.2/complainant and petitioner, respondent

No.2/complainant started living separately in her parental house.

Subsequently, vide FIR sought to be quashed in the instant

proceedings, respondent No.2/complainant alleged that immediately

after marriage petitioner alongwith his parents not only maltreated

her, but also demanded dowry and as such, appropriate action, in

accordance with law, be taken against them. In the aforesaid

background, FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings

came to be lodged at the behest of respondent No.2/complainant.

Though, after completion of the investigating police presented the

challan in the competent Court of law, however fact remains that

before proceedings pending in the court below could be concluded,

respondent No.2/complainant entered into the compromise with the

petitioner, wherein both the parties have resolved to settle their

dispute amicably interse them. In the aforesaid background,

petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings,

seeking therein quashment of FIR as well as consequent proceedings,

if any, pending in the competent Court of law.

3. On 1.3.2021, this Court having taken note of the

averments contained in the petition as well as compromise placed on

.

record (Annexure P-3), 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 factum with regard to compromise, if any,

arrived interse parties.

4. to Pursuant to aforesaid order dated 1.3.2021, respondent

No.2/ complainant has come present in Court alongwith Mr. Abhinav

Purohit Advocate, who has also filed Power of Attorney on her behalf.

Respondent No.2/complainant states on oath before this Court that

she of her own volition and without there being any external pressure

has entered into the compromise with the petitioner Sanjay Singh,

who is otherwise happened to be her husband. She stats that FIR

sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings is result of

misunderstanding interse her and petitioner and since now both the

parties have resolved to live happily, she does not wish to prosecute

the case further initiated at her behest and as such, she shall have no

objection in case prayer made in the petition for quashment of FIR as

well as consequent proceedings, if any, is accepted. Her statement is

taken on record.

5. Mr. Kunal Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General

while placing on record status report received from SHO of police

.

Station, Palampur, District Kangra, H.P. contends that since

petitioner and respondent No.2/complainant, who are otherwise

husband and wife have decided to live together and have resolved to

settle their dispute amicably, respondent-State shall have no

objection in case prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for

6. This r Court, to quashment of FIR as well as consequent proceedings is accepted.

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:-

r to

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 r can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in

quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in 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 r personal profit regardless of consequence to the society at large. To quash the proceeding merely on the ground that the

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 r 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 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) r 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 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 rnot 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 the 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 petitioner 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 petitioner, 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 170 of 2015, dated 14.09.2015 under Sections 498-A and 506 of

IPC, registered at police Station Palampur, District Kangra,

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

adjudication in the competent Court of law, are quashed and set-

aside.

16. The present petition is allowed in the aforesaid

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

    9th March,2021                                            (Sandeep Sharma),
      (shankar)                                                   Judge