Himachal Pradesh High Court
Sh. Desh Lal vs State Of Punjab And Another ... on 1 July, 2022
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
.
ON THE 1st DAY OF JULY, 2022
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHARMA
CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION (MAIN) U/S 482 Cr.P.C No.506 OF 2022
Between:
1. SH. DESH LAL, S/O SH. DEWAN
CHAND, AGED 64 YEARS, RESIDENT
OF VILLAGE CHIHRU, POST OFFICE
& TEHSIL JAWALAMUKHI, DISTRICT
KANGRA, H.P. r
2. SH. RAJ KUMAR, S/O SH. DEWAN
CHAND, AGED 66 YEARS, RESIDENT
OF VILLAGE CHIHRU, POST OFFICE
& TEHSIL JAWALAMUKHI, DISTRICT
KANGRA, H.P.
3. SH. PRITAM CHAND, S/O SH.
DEWAN CHAND AGED 72 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE CHIHRU,
POST OFFICE & TEHSIL
JAWALAMUKHI, DISTRICT KANGRA,
H.P.
....PETITIONERS
(BY MR. RAMAKANT SHARMA, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
THROUGH SECRETARY (HOME),
GOVERNMENT OF HIMACHAL
PRADESH, SHIMLA-171002 (H.P).
2. SH. PYARE LAL, S/O NOT KNOWN,
ASSISTANT ENGINEER, IPH SUB
DIVISION, JAWALAMUKHI, DISTRICT
KANGRA, H.P.
3. SH. SANJEEV KUMAR S/O NOT
KNOWN, BELDAR, IPH, SUB
::: Downloaded on - 01/07/2022 20:06:55 :::CIS
2
DIVISION JAWALAMUKHI, DISTRICT
KANGRA, H.P.
....RESPONDENTS
.
(MR. SUDHIR BHATNAGAR AND MR.
NARENDER GULERIA, ADDITIONAL
ADVOCATE GENERALS WITH MR.
SUNNY DHATWALIA, ASSISTANT
ADVOCATE GENERAL, FOR R 1)
(MS. SANJAY DUTT VASUDEVA, ADVOCATE, FOR R 2 & 3)
Whether approved for reporting?
This petition coming on for orders this day, the Court passed the
following:
O R D E R
By way of instant petition filed under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, prayer has been made on behalf of the
petitioners for quashing of FIR No. 136 of 2016, dated 13.11.2016
under Section 3 of PDP Act, 1984 read with Section 34 of IPC,
registered at police Station, Jawalamukhi, District Kangra, Himachal
Pradesh as well as consequent proceedings pending adjudication in
the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Dehra, District
Kangra, H.P., on the basis of the compromise arrived inter se parties
(Annexure P-3).
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.3, Sh. Sanjeev
Kumar (hereinafter referred to as the complainant), who alleged that
he is beldar in the office of IPH, Jawalamukhi. He alleged that on
13.11.2016, petitioners namely Desh Raj, Raj Kumar and Pritam
Chand caused damage to the water pipe and also obstructed the
.
government officials from doing their duty. Though, after completion
of the investigation, police presented the challan in the competent
court of law, but before same could be taken to its logical end,
parties entered into the compromise, whereby both the parties
resolved to settle their dispute amicably interse them and as such,
petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings for
quashing of FIR as well as consequent proceedings, if any, pending in
the competent Court of law.
3. Vide orders dated 20/27.06.2022, this Court while
directing the respondent-State to verify factum with regard to
compromise, if any, arrived interse parties, also deemed it necessary
to cause presence of the parties in the court, especially respondent
No.2 and 3, so that factum with regard to correctness and
genuineness of the compromise placed on record could be
ascertained. Though, status report of respondent-State is awaited,
but respondents No.2 and 3, who have come present in Court and are
being represented by Sh. Sanjay Dutt Vasudeva, Advocate, state on
oath before this Court that they of their own volition and without
there being any external pressure have entered into compromise with
the petitioners, whereby both the parties have resolved to settle their
dispute amicably interse them. They state that after lodging of the
FIR, it transpired that damage to the water pipe was not caused by
the petitioners, but such damage was caused by some other third
party by hitting the tractor. They state that since damage has been
.
repaired and villagers have undertaken not to repeat such act in
future, they shall have no objection in case prayer made in the
instant petition is accepted. Their statements are taken on record.
While admitting the contents of the compromise placed on record to
be correct, they also admit their signatures.
4. Mr. Narender Guleria, learned Additional Advocate
General after having heard the aforesaid statements made by
respondents No.2 and 3, fairly states that no fruitful purpose would
be served in case FIR as well as consequent proceedings sought to be
quashed are allowed to sustain. He further states that otherwise also,
chances of conviction of petitioner- accused are very remote and
bleak in view of the statements made by respondents No.2 and 3
before this Court and as such, respondent-State shall have no
objection in case the prayer made in the petitions is allowed.
5. This Court, 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.
6. 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:-
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".
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 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
r 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 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 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
r 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 bee inherent n
settled, the High Court must have due regard to the
r 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) 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. 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
r 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 not 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
rvictim 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.
10. 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.
11. 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 respondents No.2 and 3 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.
.
12. Since the matter stands compromised between the
parties and respondents No.2 and 3 are 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 respondents No.2 and 3 are allowed to continue, as such, prayer
made in the petition at hand can be accepted.
13. 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.
14. Accordingly, in view of the detailed discussion made
hereinabove as well as law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, FIR
No. 136 of 2016, dated 13.11.2016 under Section 3 of PDP Act, 1984
read with Section 34 of IPC, registered at police Station, Jawalamukhi,
District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh as well as consequent proceedings
pending adjudication in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Court
No.II, Dehra, District Kangra, H.P., are quashed and set-aside. The
petitioners-accused are acquitted of the charges framed against
them.
15. The present petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
.
1st July, 2022 (Sandeep Sharma),
(shankar) Judge
r to
