Himachal Pradesh High Court
Surinder Chauhan vs State Of Punjab And Another ... on 29 June, 2022
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
.
ON THE 29th DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHARMA
1. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION (MAIN) U/S 482 CRPC No. 452 of 2022
Between:
1. SURINDER CHAUHAN,
S/O LATE JIA LAL,
R/O VILLAGE CHHOL,
POST OFFICE POLICE STATION
AND TEHSIL KOTHAI,
DISTRICT SHIMLA, H.P.
2. DEEPAK KEPRATE,
S/O SH. PRABHU DAYAL,
R/O VILLAGE TITRI-KAYAR,
P.O. GUMMA, PS AND TEHSIL KOTKHAI,
DISTRICT SHIMLA HP AGE 54 YEARS.
....PETITIONERS
(BY MR NARESH SHARMA,
ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
THROUGH SECRETARY HOME,
SECRETARIAT, CHOTTA SHIMLAL-171002
2. AKHIL
S/O SH. AMIN CHAND,
R/O VILLAGE BATADA,
PO PUJARLI NO.3.
::: Downloaded on - 30/06/2022 20:02:41 :::CIS
2
TEHSIL AND PS ROHROO
.
DISTRICT SHIMLA, H.P.
....RESPONDENTS
(BY MR. SUDHIR BHATNAGAR
AND MR. NARENDER GULERIA,
ADDITIONAL ADVOCATES GENERAL,
WITH MR. SUNNY DHATWALIA,
ASSISTANT ADVOCATE GENERAL,
FOR THE STATE)
(BY MR. AISHWARYA CHAUHAN,
ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
2. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION (MAIN) U/S 482 CRPC No. 453 of 2022
Between:
1. AKHIL
S/O SH. AMIN CHAND,
R/O VILLAGE BATARA,
PO PUJARLI NO.3.
TEHSIL AND PS ROHROO
DISTRICT SHIMLA, H.P.
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS.
2. ABHISHEK THAKUR,
S/O SH. HANS RAJ,
R/O VILLAGE BAHAI,
PO BHAMBLA,
TEHSIL AND PS SARKAGHAT,
DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
AGE ABOUT 22 YEARS.
3. ADARSH,
S/O SH. BABU RAM,
R/O VPO AND TEHSIL RAJGARH,
DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HP.
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS.
::: Downloaded on - 30/06/2022 20:02:41 :::CIS
3
4. CHIRAG THAKUR,
.
S/O SH. YASHPAL
VILLAGE SANOHAL,
PO SAYA CHAMRAUN,
TEHSIL AND PS RAJGARH,
DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HP,
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS.
....PETITIONERS
(BY MR AISHWARYA CHAUHAN,
ADVOCATE)
AND
1.
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
THROUGH SECRETARY HOME, HP
SECRETARIAT, CHOTTA SHIMLAL-171002
2. SURINDER CHAUHAN,
S/O LATE JIA LAL,
R/O VILLAGE CHOOL,
POST OFFICE POLICE STATION
AND TEHSIL KOTHAI,
DISTRICT SHIMLA, H.P.
3. DEEPAK KEPRATE,
S/O SH. PRABHU DAYAL,
R/O VILLAGE TITRI-KAYAR,
P.O. GUMMA, PS AND TEHSIL KOTKHAI,
DISTRICT SHIMLA HP.
....RESPONDENTS
(BY MR. SUDHIR BHATNAGAR
AND MR. NARENDER GULERIA,
ADDITIONAL ADVOCATES GENERAL,
WITH MR. SUNNY DHATWALIA,
ASSISTANT ADVOCATE GENERAL,
FOR THE STATE)
::: Downloaded on - 30/06/2022 20:02:41 :::CIS
4
.
(BY MR. NARESH SHARMA,
ADVOCATE FOR R-2 & R-3)
Whether approved for reporting?.
These petitions coming on for orders this day, the Court passed the following:
ORDER
By way of these petitions filed under Section 482 Cr.PC, prayer
has been made on behalf of the petitioners for quashing of FIR Nos. 288
and 289 of 2018 dated 14.12.2018, registered under Sections 341, 323,
325, 504, 506 and Section 34 of IPC, registered with Police Station Sadar,
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. Respondent No.2 namely Akhil lodged FIR No. 288 of 2018
dated 14.12.2018, alleging therein that on 14.12.2018, while he alongwith
other students was sitting in the common room and was discussing the
issue with regard to food, petitioners herein namely Surinder Chauhan and
Deepak Keprate, Associate Professors, entered the common room and gave
him beatings with fists and knees. Complainant alleged that both the
above named persons told him as well as other students present in the
common room that hostel would be run as per their instructions. He
alleged that on account of beatings given to him, he suffered injury on his
nose. Before action, if any, could be taken on the aforesaid complaint
.
lodged by respondent No.2 Akhil, persons namely Surinder Chauhan and
Deepak Keprate also lodged FIR No. 289 of 2018 dated 14.12.2018, alleging
therein that on 13.12.2018, they visited the hostel on the verbal
instructions of Principal as some of the students were creating problem in
the hostel and had beaten the mess worker. Above named complainant
alleged that when they inquired the matter from the students present in the
hostel, they shouted and even pushed their back and some of them started
physically manhandling, obstructing them from discharging official duty.
On the basis of aforesaid complaints, FIRs sought to be quashed in the
instant cases came to be lodge, 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. Pursuant to notices issued vide order dated 3.6.2022,
respondent-State has filed the status reports in both the cases, perusal
whereof reveals that police on the basis of aforesaid complaints, filed
challan in the competent court of law, but definitely, there is no mention, if
any, with regard to amicable settlement arrived inter-se parties.
Respondents in both the cases, at whose behest FIRs sought to be quashed
came to be instituted have come present and are being represented by Mr.
.
Naresh Sharma and Mr. Aishwarya, Advocates, respectively.
4. Complainants namely Akhil, Surinder Chauhan and Deepak
Keprate state on oath that they of their own volition and without there
being any external pressure have entered into compromise, whereby both
the parties have amicably resolved to settle their dispute amicably inter-se
them. They further state that FIR sought to be quashed is result of mis-
understanding and since both the parties have apologized for their
misbehavior and mis-conduct and have undertaken not to repeat such act
in future, they do not wish the prosecute the case further and shall have no
objection in case prayer made in the instant proceedings for quashing of
FIR as well as consequent proceedings is accepted. Their statements made
on oath are taken on record.
5. Mr. Narender Guleria, learned Deputy Advocate General,
having heard the aforesaid statements made by the complainants states
that in view of the amicable settlement arrived inter-se parties, no fruitful
purpose would be served in case FIRs 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
petitioners in view of the aforesaid statements made on oath by the
complainants are very remote and bleak and as such, prayer made in the
.
instant petitions may be accepted.
6. Since these petitions have been filed under Section 482 Cr.PC,
this Court deems it fit to consider the present petitions 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 petitioners 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 parties 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
complainants are no more interested in pursuing the criminal proceedings
against the petitioners, no fruitful purpose would be served in case
proceedings initiated at the behest of the respondents are allowed to
.
continue, as such, prayer made in the petitions at hand can be accepted.
12. Consequently, in view of the averments contained in the
petitions as well as the submissions having been made by the learned
counsel for the parties that the matters have been compromised and
keeping in mind the well settled proposition of law as well as the
compromise being genuine, FIR Nos. 288 and 289 of 2018 dated
14.12.2018, registered under Sections 341, 323, 325, 504, 506 and Section
34 of IPC, registered with Police Station Sadar, 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 petitions are allowed in the aforesaid terms.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
29th June, 2022 (Sandeep Sharma),
(manjit) Judge
