Himachal Pradesh High Court
Purvi Champaran Bihar vs State Of Punjab And Another ... on 4 January, 2022
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
.
ON THE 4th DAY OF JANUARY, 2022
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHARMA
CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION (MAIN) U/S 482 CRPC No. 731 OF 2021
Between:
RAKESH KUMAR SONI,
S/O SHRI SATYA NARAYAN SONI,
R/O VILLAGE RASMANDAL
WARD NO. 7 DAMODARPUR,
POST OFFICE PIPRA,
TEHSIL CHAKIYA DISTRICT
PURVI CHAMPARAN BIHAR,
C/O BHAGINDER BUILDING CHIRGAON,
TEHSIL CHIRGAON, DISTRICT SHIMLA,
HIMACHAL PRADESH
....PETITIONER
(BY MR. V.S. CHAUHAN,
SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MR.
AJAY CHAUHAN, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF H.P. THROUGH SECRETARY (HOME,
TO THE GOVERNMENT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
SHIMLA DISTRICT SHIMLA, H.P.
3. STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
POLICE STATION ROHRU,
TEHSIL ROHRU, DISTRICT SHIMLA, H.P.
::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:33:11 :::CIS
2
.
4. SURAJ,
S/O SH. RAM VINAY SONI,
R/O VPO PADAMKER TEHSIL
AND DISTRICT MOTIHAI PURVI
CHAPARAN BIHAR C/O BHAGINDER
BUILDING CHIRGAON,
TEHSIL CHIRGAON, DISTRICT SHIMLA,
HIMACHAL PRADESH
5. SMT. RANI,
W/O SHRI RANJEET SONI,
R/O VPO PADAMKER
TEHSIL AND DISTRICT MOTIHAI PURVI
CHAPARAN BIHAR C/O BHAGINDER
BUILDING CHIRGAON, TEHSIL CHIRGAON,
DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH
6. SHRI RANJEET SONI,
S/O SHRI NAGENDER SONI,
R/O VPO PADAMKER TEHSIL AND DISTRICT
MOTIHAI PURVI CHAPARAN BIHAR
C/O BHAGINDER BUILDING CHIRGAON,
TEHSIL CHIRGAON, DISTRICT SHIMLA
7. SH. GUDDU SONI,
S/O SHRI RAM VINAY SONI,
R/O VPO PADAMKER TEHSIL AND DISTRICT
MOTIHAI PURVI CHAPARAN BIHAR
C/O BHAGINDER BUILDING CHIRGAON,
TEHSIL CHIRGAON, DISTRICT SHIMLA,
HIMACHAL PRADESH
....RESPONDENTS
8. PARSU RAM,
S/O SHRI RAJA RAM SHAH,
R/O VILLAGE RASMANDAL
WARD NO. 7 DAMODARPUR,
POST OFFICE PIPRA,
TEHSIL CHAKIYA DISTRICT
PURVI CHAMPARAN BIHAR,
C/O BHAGINDER BUILDING CHIRGAON,
TEHSIL CHIRGAON, DISTRICT SHIMLA,
::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:33:11 :::CIS
3
HIMACHAL PRADESH
.
....PROFORMA RESPONDENT
(BY MR. SUDHIR BHATNAGAR AND
MR. ARVIND SHARMA,
ADDITIONAL ADVOCATES GENERAL,
WITH MR. NARENDER THAKUR,
DEPUTY ADVOCATE GENERAL, FOR R-1)
(BY MR. RAJUL CHAUHAN, ADVOCATE,
FOR R-4 TO R-7)
Whether approved for reporting?.
This petition coming on for orders this day, the Court passed the following:
ORDER
By way of instant petition, prayer has been made on behalf of
the petitioner for quashing of FIR No. 97 of 2021 dated 18.8.2021, under
Sections 326-A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC, registered with
Police Station Chirgaon, District Shimla, H.P., as well as consequent
proceedings, if any, pending before the court below, on the basis of
compromise/amicable settlement arrived inter-se parties.
2. Averments contained in the petition, which is duly supported
by an affidavit, reveal that FIR sought to be quashed in the instant
proceedings came to be lodged at the behest of respondent No.4-
complainant Suraj, who alleged that on 17.8.2021, at 8:45PM, younger son
of his uncle namely Ajay was weeping and when he asked why he is
weeping, he disclosed that neighbor namely Parsuram was giving him one
.
letter to further deliver the same to one girl residing in the vicinity, but
since he refused to do so, he slapped him. Respondent No.4-complainant
stated that he disclosed the aforesaid incident to his uncle Ajay, who went
to the room of Parsuram to know the reason why he slapped his son, but
there, person namely Parsuram was having drinks with present petitioner
Rakesh Kumar, and they instead of rendering explanation qua the beatings
given to younger son of his uncle Ajay, gave beatings to him, his uncle and
other family members, who reached the spot after having heard the noise.
In the aforesaid background, FIR as detailed herein above, came to be
lodged against the petitioner Rakesh Kumar as well as Parsuram-proforma
respondent No.8. After completion of the investigation, police presented
challan in the competent court of law, which is still pending adjudication,
but before same could be taken to its logical end, parties to the lis have
resolved to settle their dispute amicably inter-se them by way of
compromise placed on record.
3. Vide order dated 24.12.2021, this Court while directing the
respondent State to verify the factum with regard to compromise (Annexure
P-2), deemed it necessary to cause presence of parties, especially
respondents No.4 to 7. Though instructions of respondent-Sate are
awaited but respondents No.4 to 7 have come present before the Court,
.
who are duly represented by Mr. Rajul Chauhan, Advocate.
4. Respondents No. 4 to 7 namely Suraj, Rani, Ranjeet and
Guddu, on oath state before this court that they of their own volition and
without there being external pressure have entered into compromise with
the petitioner-accused, whereby both the parties have resolved to settle
their dispute amicably inter-se them. They state that since accused have
apologized for their conduct and have assured not to repeat such act in
future, they shall have no objection in case FIR as well consequent
proceedings, are quashed and set-aside and accused are acquitted. They
admit the contents of the compromise and endorse their signatures
thereupon. Their statements made on oath are taken on record.
5. Mr. Narender Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General,
having heard aforesaid statements made by respondents No. 4 to 7 states
that in view of the amicable settlement arrived inter-se parties, no fruitful
purpose would be served in case FIR sought to be quashed as well as
consequent proceedings pending before the court below are allowed to
sustain. He further states that otherwise also, chances of conviction of the
accused in view of the aforesaid statements made on oath, are very remote
and bleak and as such, prayer made in the instant petition may be
.
accepted.
6. Since the petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.PC, 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 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:
29.1Power 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".
"32. We find from the impugned order that the sole reason which
weighed with the High Court in refusing to accept the settlement
between the parties was the nature of injuries. If we go by that
factor alone, normally we would tend to agree with the High
Court's approach. However, as pointed out hereinafter, some other
attendant and inseparable circumstances also need to be kept in
mind which compels us to take a different view.
33. We have gone through the FIR as well which was recorded on
the basis of statement of the complainant/victim. It gives an
indication that the complainant was attacked allegedly by the
accused persons because of some previous dispute between the
parties, though nature of dispute, etc. is not stated in detail.
However, a very pertinent statement appears on record viz.
"respectable persons have been trying for a compromise up till
now, which could not be finalized." This becomes an important
aspect. It appears that there have been some disputes which led to
the aforesaid purported attack by the accused on the complainant.
In this context when we find that the elders of the village,
including Sarpanch, intervened in the matter and the parties have
not only buried their hatchet but have decided to live peacefully in
future, this becomes an important consideration. The evidence is
yet to be led in the Court. It has not even started. In view of
compromise between parties, there is a minimal chance of the
witnesses coming forward in support of the prosecution case. Even
though nature of injuries can still be established by producing the
doctor as witness who conduced medical examination, it may
become difficult to prove as to who caused these injuries. The
chances of conviction, therefore, appear to be remote. It would,
therefore, be unnecessary to drag these proceedings. We, taking
all these factors into consideration cumulatively, are of the
opinion that the compromise between the parties be accepted and
the criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No.121 dated
14.7.2010 registered with police station Lopoke, District Amritsar
Rural be quashed. We order accordingly."
7. 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
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.
8. 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
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
rground 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.
9. 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.
10. In the case at hand also, offences alleged to have been
committed by the petitioner 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 the complainant have compromised the matter inter-se them, in which
case, possibility of conviction is remote/bleak and no fruitful purpose
would be served in continuing with the criminal proceedings.
11. Since the matter stands compromised between the parties and
they are no more interested in pursuing the criminal proceedings against
each other, no fruitful purpose would be served in case criminal
.
proceedings are allowed to continue, as such, prayer made in the petition
at hand can be accepted.
12. 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, FIR No. 97 of 2021 dated 18.8.2021, under Sections 326-A, 323,
504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC, registered with Police Station
Chirgaon, District Shimla, H.P., as well as consequent proceedings, if any,
pending before the court below, are ordered to be quashed and set-aside.
13. The present petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
4th January, 2022 (Sandeep Sharma),
(manjit) Judge
