Himachal Pradesh High Court

Ravi Kishan vs State Of Punjab And on 29 November, 2021

Bench: Sandeep Sharma

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
                  ON THE 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021
                                    BEFORE
               HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHARMA




                                                                   .
     CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION (MAIN) U/S 482 CRPC NO. 616 OF 2021





    Between:-

    RAVI KISHAN





    S/O SH. SUNDER SINGH
    R/O VILL. MAJHOL, P.O. KYARIGHAT,
    THE KANDA GHAT, DISTT. SOLAN, HP
                                                               ... PETITIONER
    (BY MR. R.K. GAUTAM, SENIOR ADVOCATE





    WITH MR. GAURAV GAUTAM, ADVOCATE)

    AND

    1.     STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

    2.     JITENDER PAL

           S/O SH. KULDEEP SINGH
           R/O VILLAGE DEWALI, P.O. KALIBARI,
           THE. NALAGARH, DISTT. SOLAN, H.P.
                                                            . RESPONDENTS
    (BY MR. SUDHIR BHATNAGAR AND


    MR. DESH RAJ THAKUR,
    ADDITIONAL ADVOCATES GENERAL
    WITH MR. NARINDER THAKUR,




    DEPUTY ADVOCATE GENERAL,
    FOR R-1





    MS. KOMAL CHAUDHARY, ADVOCATE
    FOR R-2)





    Whether approved for reporting:

    This petition coming on for orders this day, the court passed the following:
                                   ORDER

By way of present petition filed under S.482 CrPC, prayer has been

made on behalf of petitioner for quashing of FIR No. 52 dated 6.8.2021,

registered at Police Station Kandaghat, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh

under Ss. 279 and 337 IPC read with S.184 of the Motor Vehicles Act,

1988, as well as consequential proceedings pending in the competent

court of law, on the basis of compromise arrived inter se parties.

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

that FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings, came to be

lodged at the behest of respondent No.2/complainant, who is represented

by Ms. Komal Chaudhary, Advocate, alleging therein that on 6.8.2021, car

bearing registration No. HP-12L-0334 being driven by respondent

No.2/complainant, was hit by Motor cycle bearing registration No. HP-13-

3850, being driven by accused, as a consequence of which, petitioner

suffered injuries and damage was also caused to the car. On the basis of

aforesaid complaint, FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings

came to be instituted against the petitioner.

3. Before the Challan could be filed in the competent court of law,

petitioner entered into compromise with respondent No.2, Jeetender Pal,

(Annexure P-1), whereby both the parties have resolved to settle the

dispute inter se them amicably as such, petitioner has approached this

court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for quashing of FIR as

well as consequential proceedings pending in the competent court of law.

4. Though careful perusal of compromise reveals that the parties

to the lis have entered into compromise but yet this court deemed it

necessary to record statement of respondent No.2, who is present in

court.

5. Respondent No.2 states on oath that he of his own volition and

without any external pressure has entered into compromise with

petitioner, whereby both the parties have resolved to settle the dispute

inter se them amicably as such, he has no objection in case prayer for

quashing of FIR made on behalf of the petitioner is accepted. He states

that the FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings is result of

misunderstanding because accident did not occur on account of rash and

negligent driving of petitioner but on account of error of judgment and as

such, he shall have no objection in case prayer made in the present

petition is accepted and petitioner is acquitted. His statement is taken on

record.

6. Learned Deputy Advocate General, who in pre-lunch session

was granted time to verify genuineness of the compromise from the

concerned, Police Station, states that as per instructions imparted to him,

compromise is genuine and parties have entered into compromise,

whereby both the parties have resolved to settle the dispute inter se them

amicably. He states that since parties have settled their dispute amicably

inter se them, no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping criminal

proceedings alive against the petitioner. Otherwise also, chances of

conviction of petitioner are remote and bleak on account of statement of

respondent No.2, and as such, State shall have no objection in case

prayer made in the present petition is allowed.

7. The question which now needs consideration is whether

FIR in question can be ordered to be quashed when Hon'ble Apex

Court in Narinder Singh and others versus State of Punjab and

another (2014)6 SCC 466 has specifically held that power under S.

482 CrPC is not to be exercised in the cases 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.

8. At this stage, it would be relevant take note of the

judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Narinder Singh (supra),

whereby the 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 to 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 criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not

compoundable and where the parties have settled the matter

between themselves, however, this power is to be exercised

sparingly and with great caution. Para Nos. 29 to 29.7 of the

judgment are reproduced 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:

29.1 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 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".

9. Careful perusal of para 29.3 of the judgment suggests that

such a power is not to be exercised in the cases 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. Apart from this, offences

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. On the other

hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and

predominantly civil character, particularly arising out of commercial

transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family

disputes may be quashed when the parties have resolved their

entire disputes among themselves.

10. 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 of quashment 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 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 serious offences of mental

depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have 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."

11. Hon'ble Apex Court in its 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 thepower 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 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 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 been 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

transactions 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 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."

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

committed by the accused do not involve offences of moral turpitude

or any grave/heinous crime, 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 complainant and

accused have compromised the matter inter se 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 the complainant is no more interested in pursuing the criminal

proceedings against the accused, no fruitful purpose would be