Himachal Pradesh High Court
Of Village Kandi Post Office vs State Of Punjab And Another ... on 15 July, 2022
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
ON THE 15th
.
DAY OF JULY, 2022
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHARMA
CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION (MAIN) U/S 482 CR.P.C NO.551 of 2022
Between:
HEM RAJ SON OF SEWAKU, RESIDENT
OF VILLAGE KANDI POST OFFICE
CHOWKI, TEHSIL NIHRI, DISTRICT
MANDI, H.P. AGED 26 YEARS.
r ....PETITIONER
(BY MR. DEVENDER K. SHARMA, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATEOF HIMACHAL PRADESH,
THROUGH SECRETARY (HOME) TO
THE GOVERNMENT OF HIMACHAL
PRADESH.
2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF
POLICE, MANDI, DISTRICT MANDI,
H.P.
3. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, POLICE
STATION GOHAR, TEHSIL
CHACHIYOT, DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
4. DHANI RAM SON OF SH. SUNDER
AND FATHER OF SMT. SATYA DEVI.
5. VINDRA DEVI WIFE OF SH. DHANI
RAM AND MOTHER OF SMT. SATYA
DEVI
BOTH VILLAGE BHARMOTH, POST
OFFICE SHILHANU, TEHSIL
CHACHYOT, DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
6. SATYA DEVI WIFE OF HEM RAJ
AND DAUGHTER OF RESPONDENT
NO.5 AND 6 RESIDENT OF VILLAGE
KANDI POST OFFICE CHOWKI
TEHSIL NIHRI, DISTRICT MANDI,
::: Downloaded on - 20/07/2022 20:02:02 :::CIS
2
H.P. (BEING MINOR AS PER BIRTH
RECORD) THROUGH HER
NATURAL GUARDIAN DHANI RAM
SON OF SUNDER LAL RESIDENT
.
OF VILLAGE BHARMOTH POST
OFFICE SHILHANU, TEHSIL
CHACHYOT, DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
....RESPONDENTS
(MR. SUDHIR BHATNAGAR AND MR.
NARENDER GULERIA, ADDITIONAL
ADVOCATE GENERALS WITH MR.
SUNNY DHATWALIA, ASSISTANT
ADVOCATE GENERAL For R-1 to 3)
(MR. SUNNY MODGIL, ADVOCATE FOR
R 4 TO 6). r
Whether approved for reporting?
This petition coming on for presence of parties 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 petitioner for
quashing of FIR No. 81 of 2021, dated 17.11.2021 under Sections 363,366
376 of IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act, registered at police Station, Gohar,
District Mandi H.P., as well as consequent proceedings i.e. Trial No.4 of 2022
pending adjudication in the Court of learned Additional District & Sessions
Judge, Fast Track, Special Court (POCSO) Mandi, H.P., on the basis of the
compromise arrived interse parties (Annexure P-3).
2. Precisely, the facts of the case as emerge from the record are
that on 17.11.2021, police after having received information from Medical
Officer, Civil Hospital, Sundernagar that one minor girl has delivered child,
visited the hospital and recorded the statement of respondent No.6 under
Section 154 Cr.P.C (hereinafter referred to as the victim/prosecutrix),
wherein she stated that she is 17 years old and is student of 8th class. She
.
disclosed to the police that she had come in the contact of her husband i.e.
petitioner Hem Raj one year three months back in a marriage and thereafter
they both started liking each other. She alleged that she told petitioner that she
has become major and as such, both without consulting their parents
solemnized marriage. She stated that at present she is living happy married life
at the residence of her husband i.e. petitioner. She also disclosed to the police
that she developed physical relation with her husband(petitioner) of her own
volition, but today she has been brought to the hospital on account of labour
pain. In the aforesaid background, FIR sought to be quashed in the instant
proceedings came to be lodged against the petitioner. 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 have 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 order dated 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 respondents No.4 to 6, so that factum with regard to
correctness and genuineness of the compromise placed on record could be
ascertained. Pursuant to aforesaid directions issued by this Court, learned
Assistant Advocate General has placed on record communication, dated
.
12.07.2022, issued under the signature of Superintendent of Police, Mandi,
District Mandi, H.P., perusal whereof reveals the factum with regard to amicable
settlement arrived interse parties. As per aforesaid status report, petitioner and
victim/prosecutrix have solemnized marriage and at present victim/prosecutrix
is living happy married life with the petitioner. Natural guardian of
victim/prosecutrix also gave statement before the police that their daughter is
living happily with the petitioner and they have applied in the Hon'ble High
Court of H.P., Shimla for the withdrawal of case FIR No.81 of 2021. Aforesaid
communication is taken on record.
4. Victim/prosecutrix-respondent No.6 and her mother Smt. Vindra
Devi, respondent No.5 are present in Court and are being represented by Mr.
Sunny Modgil, Advocate.
5. Victim/prosecutrix-respondent No.6 states on oath before this
Court that she has become major and has already solemnized marriage with
the petitioner. She states that out of their wedlock one baby girl has born, who
is 7 months old. She states that she of her own volition and with a view to
solemnize marriage with the petitioner joined the company of the petitioner and
at no point of time she was sexually assaulted against her wishes. She states
that she of her own volition developed physical relation with petitioner and as
such, shall have no objection in case, case registered against her husband i.e.
petitioner is ordered to be quashed and set-aside. While admitting the contents
of the compromise placed on record to be correct, she also admits her
signature on the same. Her statement is taken on record.
.
6. Respondent No.5, Smt. Vindra, who happens to be mother of the
victim/prosecutrix, also states that since her daughter i.e. victim/prosecutrix has
already solemnized marriage with the petitioner and out of their wedlock one
baby girl has born, she does not wish to prosecute the case further and shall
have no objection in case prayer made in the instant petition for quashing of
FIR as well as consequent proceedings, is accepted.
7. After having heard aforesaid statements made by respondent
No.5 and victim/prosecutrix, Mr. Sunny Dhatwalia, Assistant Advocate General
states that though petitioner has solemnized marriage with the
victim/prosecutrix, but since he has indulged in heinous crime punishable under
Section 376 of IPC, it may not be in the interest of justice to accept the prayer
made on behalf of the petitioner for quashing of the FIR. He states that though
chances of conviction of petitioner- accused are very remote and bleak in view
of the statements made by respondent No.5 and victim/prosecutrix-respondent
No.6 on oath, but Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled Narinder Singh and
others versus State of Punjab and another (2014)6 Supreme Court Cases
466, has categorically held that High Court while exercising power under
Section 482 Cr.P.C may not quash proceedings in the cases involving heinous
crime i.e. mental depravity, murder, rape, dacoity etc.
8. True, it is that as per the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in
Narinder Singh case (supra), compromise, if any, arrived interse parties in a
criminal case involving offences punishable under Section 302 and 376 of IPC,
is not to be accepted, but if aforesaid judgment is read in its entirety, High Court
while exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C can permit the parties to enter
.
into the compromise in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case,
especially when such compromise would bring peace and harmony among the
parties . No doubt, in the case at hand petitioner has not only solemnized
marriage with the victim/prosecutrix, but out of their wedlock one child has born
and they are living happy married life. It may be too harsh and impractical to
not accept the prayer made on behalf of petitioner for quashing of FIR as well
as consequent proceedings. Moreover, as has been taken note hereinabove,
mother of the victim/prosecutrix has also stated on oath before this Court that
since petitioner and her daughter (respondent No.6) have solemnized marriage
and they are living happy married life, she shall have no objection in case the
prayer made in the petition is allowed.
9. 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 petitioner that offences in the
instant case can be ordered to be compounded.
10. 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".
11. 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
r 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."
12. 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 constitutionally nor statutorily a
r 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 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
r 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.
13. 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 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
r 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 victim 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.
14. 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.
15. Since, in the case at hand, victim/prosecutrix has already
solemnized marriage with the petitioner and she is living happy married life, it
would be in the interest of justice to accept the prayer made on behalf of the
petitioner/accused for quashing of the FIR as well as consequent proceedings,
which if otherwise allowed to sustain may disturb the happy married life of the
petitioner and victim/prosecutrix. No doubt, while accepting prayer for quashing
of the FIR in heinous crime like rape, etc. interest of society at large is to be
kept in mind rather than the interest of an individual, however in the facts and
circumstances of the case, as detailed hereinabove, interest of victim/
prosecutrix appears to be of paramount importance, if is not protected and
petitioner/accused is left to be prosecuted for his having committed the offence
punishable under Sections 363,366 376 of IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act,
ultimate loser would be victim/prosecutrix and as such, no fruitful purpose
would be served in continuing with the criminal proceedings.
16. 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.
17. Accordingly, in view of the detailed discussion made hereinabove
as well as law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, FIR No. 81 of 2021, dated
.
17.11.2021 under Sections 363, 366 376 of IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act,
registered at police Station, Gohar, District Mandi H.P., as well as consequent
proceedings i.e. Trial No.4 of 2022 pending adjudication in the Court of learned
Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court (POCSO)
Mandi, H.P., are quashed and set-aside and the petitioner-accused is acquitted
for the charges framed against him.
18. The present petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending
application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
15th July, 2022 (Sandeep Sharma),
(shankar) Judge
