Bhagat Ram Aged 43 Years vs State Of Punjab
2022 Latest Caselaw 3661 HP

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
                  ON THE 23rd DAY OF MAY, 2022
                            BEFORE
           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIVEK SINGH THAKUR
      CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION (MAIN) U/S 482 CRPC No. 125 OF 2022




                                                         .
BETWEEN:­





 1. BHAGAT RAM AGED 43 YEARS,SON OF SH.
 NURSU RAM, R/O VILLAGE KUMAHAR, P.O.
 KHARGA, TEHSIL NIRMAND, P.S BROW,





 DISTRICT KULLU, H.P.

 2. TEZ RAM SON OF SH. SIPNU RAM, AGED 36
 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE CHILAAGE, P.O. KHARGA,
 TEHSIL NIRMAND, P.S BROW, DISTRICT KULLU,





 H.P.

 3. SOHAN LAL SON OF SH. MEGHI RAM, AGED
 42 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE CHILAAGE, P.O.

 KHARGA, TEHSIL NIRMAND,

 P.S BROW DISTRICT KULLU, H.P.

 4. BABLU RAM SON OF SH. NARJI RAM, AGED
 34 YEAR, R/O VILLAGE CHILAAGE, P.O. KHARGA,
 TEHSIL NIRMANDD, P.S BROW,DISTRICT KULLU,



 H.P.

                                                           PETITIONERS




 (BY MR. NARESH SHARMA, ADVOCATE)





 AND

 1. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH THROUGH





 SECRETARY HOME, H.P. SECRETARIAT,
 CHOTTA SHIMLA 171 002.

 2. KAILASH CHAND, SON OF SH. KANDI RAM,
 R/O VILLAGE CHILAAGE, P.O. KHARGA,
 TEHSIL NIRMAND, P.S. BROW,
 DISTRICT KULLU, H.P.                                        RESPONDENTS




                                        ::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2022 20:05:29 :::CIS
                                          2



      (MR. RAJU RAM RAHI, DEPUTY
      ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR R­1
     (MS. MAMTA BHATWAN, ADVOCATE , FOR
      R­2)
     whether approved for Reporting?




                                                                     .

                This petition coming on for presence of parties this day, the Court
passed the following:





                                       ORDER

The instant petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.PC') has been filed by petitioners on the

basis of compromise arrived at between them and respondent No. 2 for quashing of

FIR No.0027 of 2020, Dated 28.03.2020, registered in Police Station Brow, District

Kullu, Himachal Pradesh under Sections 336,427,188 and 34 of the Indian Penal

Code (in short 'IPC') and Sections 51 of National Disaster Management Act and 3 of

Explosive Substances Act and consequent proceedings arising thereto.

2. Bhagat Ram, Tez Ram, Sohan Lal, Bablu Ram ( Petitioners ) and

Kailash Chand (respondent No.2) are present in the Court today and their

statements, on oath, have been recorded separately. They have been duly identified

by their respective learned counsel.

3. Complainant­respondent No.2, in his statement, has stated that

petitioners are permanent resident of village Kumahar, P.O. Kharga, Tehsil

Nirmand, P.S. Brow, District Kullu,H.P. He has further submitted that petitioner

Bhagat Ram was constructing his house in their village as he is owner of landed

property in the village and because of damage caused to his house on account of act

and conduct of petitioner Bhagat Ram and his labourers, he lodged FIR against

them. He has further stated that now matter has been amicably settled between

them and they are living as friends and by the intervention of family members and

elder members of the society and friends, he has decided to withdraw the complaint

for quashing of FIR and criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners. He

.

has also sworn an affidavit in terms of compromise which has been placed on record

as Annexure P­3.

4. In his statement petitioner Bhagat Ram has endorsed statement made by

respondent No.2 to be true and correct and has undertaken to be more careful in

future and not to repeat such incident. Petitioners No.2, 3 and 4 in their joint

5.

r to statement have endorsed the statement of respondent Kailash Chand and

undertaken to be more careful in future and not to involve in any unlawful activity.

Petitioners and respondent No.2 have stated that they have entered into

compromise and deposed in the Court, out of their free will and consent and without

any threat or coercion of any kind.

6. It is contended on behalf of respondent No.1­State that petitioners are not

entitled to invoke inherent jurisdiction of this Court to exercise its power on the

basis of compromise arrived at between the parties with respect to an offence not

compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C.

7. Three Judges Bench of the Apex Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab

and Ors. reported in(2012) 10 SCC 303, explaining that High Court has inherent

power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with no statutory

limitation including Section 320 Cr.PC, has held that these powers are to be

exercised to secure the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process of any Court and

these powers can be exercised to quash criminal proceedings or complaint or FIR in

appropriate cases where offender and victim have settled their dispute and for that

purpose no definite category of offence can be prescribed. However, it is also

observed that Courts must have due regard to nature and gravity of the crime and

criminal proceedings in heinous and serious offences or offence like murder, rape

.

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

the dispute with offender. Jurisdiction vested in High Court under Section 482

Cr.PC is held to be exercisable for quashing criminal proceedings in cases having

overwhelming and predominatingly civil favour particularly offences arising from

commercial, financial, mercantile, civil partnership, or such like transactions, or

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

other such disputes where wrong is basically private or personal nature where

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

cases for this purpose could be prescribed and each case has to be dealt with on its

own merit but it is also clarified that this power does not extend to crimes against

society.

8. The Apex Court in Parbatbhai Aahir alias Parbhathbhai

Bhimsinghbhai Karmur and others vs. State of Gujarat and another, (2017)

9 SCC 641, summarizing the broad principles regarding inherent powers of the High

Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has recognized that these powers are not inhibited

by provisions of Section 320 Cr.P.C.

9. The Apex Court in case Narinder Singh and others vs. State of

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

Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan and others (2019) 5 SCC 688, has summed up and

laid down principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate

treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercise its power under

Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings

or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with criminal

proceedings.

.

10. No doubt Section 336, 188 of IPC and Sections 51 of National

Disaster Management Act and 3 of Explosive Substances Act are not compoundable

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

Singh's, Narinder Singh's, Parbatbhai Aahir's and Laxmi Narayan's cases

supra, power of High Court under Section 482 Cr.PC is not inhibited by the

provisions of Section 320 Cr.PC and FIR as well as criminal proceedings can be

quashed by exercising inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.PC, if warranted in

given facts and circumstances of the case for ends of justice or to prevent abuse of

the process of any Court, even in those cases which are not compoundable where

parties have settled the matter between themselves.

11. In Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab, (2008) 4 SCC 582,

the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasized and advised that in the matter of

compromise in criminal proceedings, keeping in view of nature of this case, to save

the time of the Court for utilizing to decide more effective and meaningful litigation,

a commonsense approach, based on ground realities and bereft of the technicalities

of law, should be applied.

12. Now, the matter has been amicably settled between the private

parties, as such, I am of the considered view that no fruitful purpose shall be served

to continue the proceedings against accused­ respondent.

13. Keeping in view nature and gravity of offence and considering facts

and circumstances of the case in entirety, I am of the opinion that present petition

deserves to be allowed for ends of justice and the same is allowed accordingly and

.

FIR No. 0027 of 2020, dated 28.3.2020, registered in Police Station Brow, District

Kullu, H.P. is quashed. Consequent to quashing of FIR, criminal proceedings

pending/ initiated against petitioner­accused in pursuance thereto, are also quashed.

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

application(s), if any.

15.

Parties are permitted to produce a copy of this judgment, downloaded

from the web­page of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, before the authorities

concerned, and the said authorities shall not insist for production of a certified copy

but if required, may verify it from Website of the High Court.

                                                     (Vivek Singh Thakur),
23   rd
        May, 2022                                     Judge.
     (veena)