Himachal Pradesh High Court
Village Gadiara vs Unknown on 1 October, 2021
Bench: Chander Bhusan Barowalia
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
ON THE 1st DAY OF OCTOBER, 2021
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA
.
CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION (MAIN) No. 393 of 2021
Between:
ANKIT KATOCH, S/O SH.
SURINDER KATOCH, R/O
VILLAGE GADIARA, P.O.
SALIANA, TEHSIL PALAMPUR,
DISTRICT KANGRA, H.P.
......PETITIONER
(BY SH. SUNNY MODGIL,
ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF HIMACHAL
PRADESH.
2. OM RAJ, S/O SH. ROSHAN
LAL, R/O VILLAGE
BAGHEEN, P.O.
CHUDHREHAR (SUNHET)
TEHSIL DEHRA, DISTRICT
KANGRA, H.P.
3. BABLU KUMAR, S/O
JAGDISH CHAND, R/O
VILLAGE BAGHEEN, P.O.
CHUDHREHAR (SUNHET)
TEHSIL DEHRA, DISTRICT
KANGRA, H.P.
......RESPONDENTS
(SH. ARVIND SHARMA, SH. P.K.
BHATTI AND SH. BHARAT
BHUSHAN, ADDL. AGS WITH SH.
AMIT DHUMAL, DY. AG, FOR R1.
SH. PRASHANT SHARMA,
ADVOCATE, FOR R2.
SH. AJIT SHARMA, ADVOCATE,
FOR R3.)
Whether approved for reporting? Yes.
::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:09:24 :::CIS
2
This petition coming on for orders this day, the Court
passed the following:
ORDER
.
The present petition, under Section 482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter to be called as "the Code"),
has been maintained by the petitioner for quashing of F.I.R No.
0148, dated 04.10.2020, under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of
the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Dehra,
District Kangra, H.P., alongwith all consequent proceedings
arising out of the said F.I.R., pending before the learned trial
Court.
2. Briefly stated the facts, giving rise to the present
petition are that on 04.10.2020, respondent No. 2/complainant
filed a complaint at Police Station Dehra, wherein it has been
alleged that today when he was going to Jawalaji on his Scooty
and reached at place Sanot, he saw a black motor cycle in front
of him. In the meantime, a white colour car came from Jawalaji
side in a high speed and hit the aforesaid motor cycle. Due to
which, the motor cyclist fell on road and sustained injuries on
his face and body. As per the complainant, the accident took
place on account of rash and negligent driving of the petitioner.
Accordingly, initially FIR No. 0148, dated 04.10.2020, under
Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code, came to be
registered against petitioner, however, when challan was
presented, Section 338 of the Indian Penal Code was
incorporated. However, now the parties have entered into a
compromise, vide Compromise Deed, Annexure P2 and in
.
order to maintain their relations cordial, they do not want to
pursue the case against each other. Hence the present petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that
as the parties have compromised the matter, vide Compromise
Deed (Annexure P2), no purpose will be served by keeping the
proceedings alive, hence the FIR, alongwith consequent
proceedings, arising out of the same, pending before the learned
trial Court may be quashed and set aside.
4. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate
General has argued that offence of rash and negligent driving is
an offence against the society and it cannot be permitted to be
compounded/quashed, so the present petition may be
dismissed.
5. Learned counsels for respondents No. 2 and 3 have
argued that taking into consideration the fact that parties have
settled their dispute amicably, the present petition may be
allowed.
6. To appreciate the arguments of learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the parties, I have gone through the
records in detail.
7. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court B.S.
Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana and another, (2003) 4
SCC 675, have held that if for the purpose of securing the ends
.
of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necessary, section 320
would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing. It is
well settled that the powers under section 482 have no limits. Of
course, where there is more power, it becomes necessary to
exercise utmost care and caution while invoking such powers.
Their Lordships have held as under:
[6] In Pepsi Food Ltd. and another v. Special Judicial
Magistrate and others ((1998) 5 SCC 749), this Court with
reference to Bhajan Lal's case observed that the
guidelines laid therein as to where the Court will exercise
jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code could not be
inflexible or laying rigid formulae to be followed by the
Courts. Exercise of such power would depend upon the
facts and circumstances of each case but with the sole
purpose to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or
otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It is well settled
that these powers have no limits. Of course, where there
is more power, it becomes necessary to exercise utmost
care and caution while invoking such powers.
[8] It is, thus, clear that Madhu Limaye's case does not
lay down any general proposition limiting power of
quashing the criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint as
vested in Section 482 of the Code or extraordinary power
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We are,
therefore, of the view that if for the purpose of securing
the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necessary,
Section 320 would not be a bar to the exercise of power
of quashing. It is, however, a different matter depending
upon the facts and circumstances of each case whether
to exercise or not such a power.
[15] In view of the above discussion, we hold that the
High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash
criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and Section
320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers under
Section 482 of the Code.
8. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Preeti Gupta and another vs. State of Jharkhand and
another, (2010) 7 SCC 667, have held that the ultimate object
.
of justice is to find out the truth and punish the guilty and
protect the innocent. The tendency of implicating the husband
and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times,
even after the conclusion of the criminal trial, it is difficult to
ascertain the real truth. Experience reveals that long and
protracted criminal trials lead to rancour, acrimony and
bitterness in the relationship amongst the parties. The criminal
trials lead to immense sufferings for all concerned. Their
Lordships have further held that permitting complainant to
pursue complaint would be abuse of process of law and the
complaint against the appellants was quashed. Their Lordships
have held as under:
[27] A threeJudge Bench (of which one of us, Bhandari,
J. was the author of the judgment) of this Court in Inder
Mohan Goswami and Another v. State of Uttaranchal &
Others, 2007 12 SCC 1 comprehensively examined the
legal position. The court came to a definite conclusion
and the relevant observations of the court are
reproduced in para 24 of the said judgment as under:
"Inherent powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. though
wide have to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with
great caution and only when such exercise is justified by
the tests specifically laid down in this section itself.
Authority of the court exists for the advancement of
justice. If any abuse of the process leading to injustice
is brought to the notice of the court, then the Court
would be justified in preventing injustice by invoking
inherent powers in absence of specific provisions in the
Statute."
[28] We have very carefully considered the averments
of the complaint and the statements of all the witnesses
recorded at the time of the filing of the complaint.
There are no specific allegations against the appellants
in the complaint and none of the witnesses have alleged
any role of both the appellants.
[35] The ultimate object of justice is to find out the
.
truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent.
To find out the truth is a herculean task in majority of
these complaints. The tendency of implicating husband
and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon.
At times, even after the conclusion of criminal trial, it is
difficult to ascertain the real truth. The courts have to
be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these
complaints and must take pragmatic realities into
consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The
allegations of harassment of husband's close relations
who had been living in different cities and never visited
or rarely visited the place where the complainant
resided would have an entirely different complexion.
The allegations of the complaint are required to be
scrutinized with great care and circumspection.
r36. Experience reveals that long and protracted
criminal trials lead to rancour, acrimony and bitterness
in the relationship amongst the parties. It is also a
matter of common knowledge that in cases filed by the
complainant if the husband or the husband's relations
had to remain in jail even for a few days, it would ruin
the chances of amicable settlement altogether. The
process of suffering is extremely long and painful.
[38] The criminal trials lead to immense sufferings
for all concerned. Even ultimate acquittal in the trial
may also not be able to wipe out the deep scars of
suffering of ignominy. Unfortunately a large number of
these complaints have not only flooded the courts but
also have led to enormous social unrest affecting peace,
harmony and happiness of the society. It is high time
that the legislature must take into consideration the
pragmatic realities and make suitable changes in the
existing law. It is imperative for the legislature to take
into consideration the informed public opinion and the
pragmatic realities in consideration and make necessary
changes in the relevant provisions of law. We direct the
Registry to send a copy of this judgment to the Law
Commission and to the Union Law Secretary,
Government of India who may place it before the
Hon'ble Minister for Law & Justice to take appropriate
steps in the larger interest of the society.
9. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Jitendra Raghuvanshi and others vs. Babita Raghuvanshi
and another, (2013) 4 SCC 58, have held that criminal
proceedings or FIR or complaint can be quashed under section
482 Cr.P.C. in appropriate cases in order to meet ends of
.
justice. Even in noncompoundable offences pertaining to
matrimonial disputes, if court is satisfied that parties have
settled the disputes amicably and without any pressure, then
for purpose of securing ends of justice, FIR or complaint or
subsequent criminal proceedings in respect of offences can be
r to
quashed. Their Lordships have held as under:
[13] As stated earlier, it is not in dispute that after
filing of a complaint in respect of the offences
punishable under Sections 498A and 406 of IPC, the
parties, in the instant case, arrived at a mutual
settlement and the complainant also has sworn an
affidavit supporting the stand of the appellants. That
was the position before the trial Court as well as before
the High Court in a petition filed under Section 482 of
the Code. A perusal of the impugned order of the High
Court shows that because the mutual settlement arrived
at between the parties relate to noncompoundable
offence, the court proceeded on a wrong premise that it
cannot be compounded and dismissed the petition filed
under Section 482. A perusal of the petition before the
High Court shows that the application filed by the
appellants was not for compounding of non
compoundable offences but for the purpose of quashing
the criminal proceedings.
[14] The inherent powers of the High Court under
Section 482 of the Code are wide and unfettered. In B.S.
Joshi , this Court has upheld the powers of the High
Court under Section 482 to quash criminal proceedings
where dispute is of a private nature and a compromise is
entered into between the parties who are willing to
settle their differences amicably. We are satisfied that
the said decision is directly applicable to the case on
hand and the High Court ought to have quashed the
criminal proceedings by accepting the settlement
arrived at.
[15] In our view, it is the duty of the courts to
encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes,
particularly, when the same are on considerable
increase. Even if the offences are noncompoundable, if
they relate to matrimonial disputes and the court is
satisfied that the parties have settled the same amicably
and without any pressure, we hold that for the purpose
of securing ends of justice, Section 320 of the Code
would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing
.
of FIR, complaint or the subsequent criminal
proceedings.
[16] There has been an outburst of matrimonial
disputes in recent times. The institution of marriage
occupies an important place and it has an important
role to play in the society. Therefore, every effort
should be made in the interest of the individuals in
order to enable them to settle down in life and live
peacefully. If the parties ponder over their defaults and
terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement
instead of fighting it out in a court of law, in order to do
complete justice in the matrimonial matters, the courts
should be less hesitant in exercising its extraordinary
jurisdiction. It is trite to state that the power under
Section 482 should be exercised sparingly and with
circumspection only when the court is convinced, on
the basis of material on record, that allowing the
proceedings to continue would be an abuse of the
process of the court or that the ends of justice require
that the proceedings ought to be quashed. We also make
it clear that exercise of such power would depend upon
the facts and circumstances of each case and it has to
be exercised in appropriate cases in order to do real and
substantial justice for the administration of which alone
the courts exist. It is the duty of the courts to
encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes
and Section 482 of the Code enables the High Court and
Article 142 of the Constitution enables this Court to
pass such orders.
[17] In the light of the above discussion, we hold that
the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can
quash the criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint in
appropriate cases in order to meet the ends of justice
and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the
powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code.
Under these circumstances, we set aside the impugned
judgment of the High Court dated 04.07.2012 passed in
M.C.R.C. No. 2877 of 2012 and quash the proceedings in
Criminal Case No. 4166 of 2011 pending on the file of
Judicial Magistrate ClassI, Indore."
10. Similarly, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Parbatbhai
Aahir alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others vs.
State of Gujarat and another, (2017) 9 Supreme Court Cases
641, wherein it has been held as under :
"16.The broad principles which emerge from the
.
precedents on the subject, may be summarised in the
following propositions:
16.1. 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 recognises and
preserves powers which inhere in the High Court;
16.2. 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.
16.3. 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;
16.4 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;
16.5 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;
16.6. 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;
16.7. 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;
16.8. 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;
16.9 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
16.10. There is yet an exception to the principle set
out in propositions 16.8 and 16.9 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.
Even if, the trial is allowed to be continued, as the
parties have compromised the matter, there are bleak chances of
conviction to secure the ends of justice.
11. Thus, taking into consideration the law as discussed
hereinabove and the compromise arrived at between the parties
vide Compromise Deed, Annexure P2, I find that the interest of
justice would be met, in case, the proceedings are quashed, as the
parties have compromised the matter and do not want to proceed
further with the case in order to live peacefully.
12. Accordingly, looking into all attending facts and
circumstances, this Court finds that present is a fit case to
exercise jurisdiction vested in this Court, under Section 482 of the
Code and, therefore, the present petition is allowed and F.I.R No.
0148, dated 04.10.2020, under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of IPC,
registered at Police Station Dehra, District Kangra, H.P., is ordered
.
to be quashed. Since F.I.R No. 0148, dated 04.10.2020, under the
aforesaid Sections has been quashed, consequent proceedings,
arising out of the said F.I.R. are thereby rendered infructuous.
13. The petition is accordingly disposed of alongwith
pending application(s), if any.
1st October, 2021
(raman)
r to (Chander Bhusan Barowalia)
Judge
