Suresh Kumar vs Unknown
2022 Latest Caselaw 66 HP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
                   ON THE 4th DAY OF JANUARY, 2022
                                BEFORE




                                                             .

             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIVEK SINGH THAKUR
      CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION (MAIN) U/S 482 CRPC No. 639 of 2021

BETWEEN:-





1.   SURESH KUMAR, S/O SH. PANCHHI
     RAM,
2.   KARTAR SINGH, S/O SH. PANCHHI





     RAM,
3.   PRATAP CHAND, S/O SH. PANCHHI
     RAM, ALL RESIDENT OF VPO KOT,
     TEHSIL GHUMARWIN, DISTT.
     BILASPUR, H.P.


4.   RAJESH KUMAR, S/O SURINDER
     SINGH, R/O VILLAGE MUNDKHAR
     TULSI, P.O. MUNDKHAR, TEHSIL
     BHORANJ, DISTRICT HAMIRPUR,


     H.P.                                                      ....PETITIONERS

     (BY SH. JEET SINGH, ADVOCATE,




     VICE MR.R.S. CHANDEL, ADVOCATE.)
     AND





1.   STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
     THROUGH SECRETARY HOME TO





     THE GOVT. OF H.P.
2.   RAMESH CHAND S/O BADDA RAM,
     R/O VILL. MUNDKHAR TULSI, PO
     MUNDKHAR, TEHSIL BHORANJ,
     DISTT. HAMIRPUR H.P.                                   ....RESPONDENTS
     (BY SH. RAJU RAM RAHI, DEPUTY
     ADVOCATE GENERAL
     FOR RESPONDENT NO. 1.)
     (BY SH.SUMIT HIMALVI, ADVOCATE,
     FOR RESPONET NO. 2.)

     Whether approved for Reporting?

             This petition coming on for admission this day, the Court
delivered the following:
                            JUDGMENT

The instant petition, under Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.PC'), has been filed by

petitioners Suresh Kumar, Kartar Singh, Pratap Chand and Rajesh

Kumar, on the basis of compromise arrived at between them and

.

respondent No. 2 Ramesh Chand for quashing of FIR No. No. 107 of

2021, dated 28.6.2021, registered in Police Station Bhoranj, District

Hamirpur, H.P. under Sections 452, 323, 325, 504 & 34 of the Indian

Penal Code (in short 'IPC') and consequent proceedings arising thereto.

2. Petitioners Suresh Kumar, Kartar Singh, Pratap Chand and

Rajesh Kumar as well as respondent No. 2/complaint Ramesh Chand

were present in the Court on 27.12.2021. They were duly identified by

their respective counsel. Their statements, on oath, have been recorded

separately.

3. In his statement, complainant-respondent No. 2 Ramesh

Chand has stated that petitioners No. 1 to 3 Suresh Kumar, Kartar Singh

and Pratap Chand are sons of his uncle and their grandfather Shyam

Ram is common and petitioner No. 4 Rajesh Kumar is also from same

clan, but belonging to different family. He has stated that the occurrence

in question, leading to lodging of FIR, had happened on account of

misunderstanding, but now matter has been amicably settled between

them with the intervention and advise of elders of their families and

since they are having close relations with each other, all of them have

decided to live peacefully and harmoniously and, therefore, he has

decided to withdraw the complaint against the petitioners. He has

further stated that he has deposed in this Court, out of his free will,

consent and without any external pressure, coercion or threat of any

kind.

4. In their joint statement, petitioners Suresh Kumar, Kartar

Singh, Pratap Chand and Rajesh Kumar have stated that complainant

.

Ramesh Chand is their brother in relation. They have endorsed the

statement made by complainant Ramesh Chand and have undertaken

not to repeat such type of incident in future. They have further stated

that they have deposed in this Court, out of their free will, consent and

without any external pressure, coercion or threat of any kind.

5.

It is contended on behalf of respondent No.1-State that

petitioner/accused is not entitled to invoke inherent jurisdiction of this

Court to exercise its power on the basis of compromise arrived at

between the parties with respect to an offence not compoundable under

Section 320 Cr.P.C.

6. Three Judges Bench of the Apex Court in Gian Singh Vs.

State of Punjab and Ors. reported in(2012) 10 SCC 303, explaining

that High Court has inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure with no statutory limitation including Section 320

Cr.PC, has held that these powers are to be exercised to secure the

ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process of any Court and these

powers can be exercised to quash criminal proceedings or complaint or

FIR in appropriate cases where offender and victim have settled their

dispute and for that purpose no definite category of offence can be

prescribed. However, it is also observed that Courts must have due

regard to nature and gravity of the crime and criminal proceedings in

heinous and serious offences or offence like murder, rape and dacoity

etc. should not be quashed despite victim or victim family have settled

the dispute with offender. Jurisdiction vested in High Court under

Section 482 Cr.PC is held to be exercisable for quashing criminal

proceedings in cases having overwhelming and predominatingly civil

.

flavour particularly offences arising from commercial, financial,

mercantile, civil partnership, or such like transactions, or even offences

arising out of matrimony relating to dowry etc., family disputes or other

such disputes where wrong is basically private or personal nature where

parties mutually resolve their dispute amicably. It was also held that no

category or cases for this purpose could be prescribed and each case

has to be dealt with on its own merit but it is also clarified that this power

does not extend to crimes against society.

7. The Apex Court in Parbatbhai Aahir alias Parbhathbhai

Bhimsinghbhai Karmur and others vs. State of Gujarat and another,

(2017) 9 SCC 641, summarizing the broad principles regarding inherent

powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has recognized that

these powers are not inhibited by provisions of Section 320 Cr.P.C.

8. The Apex Court in case Narinder Singh and others vs.

State of Punjab and others reported in (2014)6 SCC 466 and also in

State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan and others (2019) 5

SCC 688, has summed up and laid down principles by which the High

Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement

between the parties and exercise its power under Section 482 of the

Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or

refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with criminal

proceedings.

9. No doubt Section 452 of IPC is not compoundable under

Section 320 Cr.P.C., however, as explained by Hon'ble Supreme Court

in Gian Singh's, Narinder Singh's, Parbatbhai Aahir's and Laxmi

Narayan's cases supra, power of High Court under Section 482 Cr.PC

.

is not inhibited by the provisions of Section 320 Cr.P.C and FIR as well

as criminal proceedings can be quashed by exercising inherent powers

under Section 482 Cr.PC, if warranted in given facts and circumstances

of the case for ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of any

Court, even in those cases which are not compoundable where parties

10. to have settled the matter between themselves.

In Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab, (2008) 4 SCC

582, the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasized and advised that in the

matter of compromise in criminal proceedings, keeping in view of nature

of this case, to save the time of the Court for utilizing to decide more

effective and meaningful litigation, a commonsense approach, based on

ground realities and bereft of the technicalities of law, should be applied.

11. Offences in question, for material on record, do not fall in the

category of offence termed to be prohibited, in terms of the

pronouncements of Apex Court, to be compounded, exercising power

under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

12. Keeping in view nature and gravity of offence and

considering facts and circumstances of the case in entirety, I am of the

opinion that present petition deserves to be allowed for ends of justice

and the same is allowed accordingly and FIR No. 107 of 2021, dated

28.6.2021, registered in Police Station Bhoranj, District Hamirpur, H.P..

is quashed. Consequent to quashing of FIR, criminal proceedings

pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class Court

No.(3), Hamirpur, H.P. initiated against petitioners-accused in pursuance

thereto, are also quashed.

.

13. Petition stands disposed of in above terms, so also pending

applications, if any.

14. Parties are permitted to produce a copy of this judgment,

downloaded from the web-page of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh,

before the authorities concerned, and the said authorities shall not insist

Website of the High Court.

r to for production of a certified copy but if required, may verify it from

(Vivek Singh Thakur), th 4 January, 2022 Judge.

(Keshav)