Himachal Pradesh High Court
Aman Sood & Another vs State Of H.P. & Another on 16 November, 2022
Bench: Vivek Singh Thakur
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr.MMO No. 716 of 2022
.
Date of decision: 16.11.2022
Aman Sood & another. ...Petitioners.
Versus
State of H.P. & another. ...Respondents.
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the Petitioners. Mr.Rohit, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr.Raju Ram Rahi, Deputy Advocate
General, for respondent No. 1.
Mr.Bodh Raj, Advocate, vice Mr.Sat Prakash,
Advocate, for respondent No. 2.
Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge (oral)
The instant petition, under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.PC'), has been filed
by petitioners Aman Sood and Sheetal Kuthiala, on the basis of
compromise arrived at between them and respondent No. 2 Isha Devi
for quashing of FIR No. No. 139 of 2020, dated 16.6.2020, registered
in Police Station Dhalli, Shimla, H.P. under Sections 332, 341, 353,
427 and 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC')
and consequent proceedings arising thereto.
2. Petitioners Aman Sood & Sheetal Kuthiala (accused in the
case) and Isha Devi (complainant in this case) are present in the Court
today. They have been duly identified by their respective counsel.
Their statements, on oath, have been recorded separately.
3. In her statement, complainant Isha Devi has stated that the
incident in reference had taken place in heat of passion on account of
anger due to misunderstanding, which was clarified by the petitioners
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes
lateron and she had also lodged complaint out of anger and now
everything has been clarified between them and they are of the opinion
that incident could have been avoided, but had happened
.
unfortunately. She has also stated that she has compromised the
matter with the petitioners and the compromise has also been reduced
into writing. Copy of the compromise has been placed on record as
Annexure A-2 with the petition. She has further stated that now they
are in talking terms with each other and living peacefully, cordially and
harmoniously and they have no grudge against each other. She, while
endorsing her signatures on the copy of compromise, has stated that
the same has also been signed by petitioners in her presence and has
prayed for permitting her to withdraw the complaint for quashing the
FIR as well as consequential proceedings arising thereto.
4. In their joint statement, petitioners/accused Aman Sood
and Sheetal Kuthiala have endorsed the statement made by
complainant Isha Devi to be true and correct. They have also
endorsed their signatures on the compromise.
5. Petitioners Aman Sood, Sheetal Kuthiala and respondent
No. 2 Isha Devi have stated that they have compromised the matter
and deposed in the Court out of their free will, consent and also without
any kind of threat, coercion or pressure etc.
6. It is contended on behalf of respondent No.1-State that
petitioner/accused is not entitled to invoke inherent jurisdiction of this
Court to exercise its power on the basis of compromise arrived at
between the parties with respect to an offence not compoundable
under Section 320 Cr.P.C.
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
flavour particularly offences arising from commercial, financial,
mercantile, civil partnership, or such like transactions, or even
offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry etc., family disputes
or other such disputes where wrong is basically private or personal
nature where parties mutually resolve their dispute amicably. It was
also held that no category or cases for this purpose could be
prescribed and each case has to be dealt with on its own merit but it is
also clarified that this power does not extend to crimes against society.
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 Sections 332 and 353 of IPC 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.P.C and FIR as well as criminal proceedings can be
quashed by exercising inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.PC, if
warranted in given facts and circumstances of the case for ends of
justice or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court, even in those
cases which are not compoundable where parties 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. Offences in question, for material on record, do not fall in
the category of offences termed to be prohibited, in terms of the
pronouncements of Apex Court, to be compounded, exercising power
under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
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. 139 of 2020, dated
16.6.2020, registered in Police Station Dhalli, Shimla, H.P. is quashed.
Consequent to quashing of FIR, criminal proceedings initiated against
petitioner-accused Aman Sood and Sheetal Kuthiala in pursuance
thereto, are also quashed.
14. Petition stands disposed of in above terms, so also
pending applications, if any.
14. Parties are permitted to produce a copy of this judgment,
downloaded from the web-page of the High Court of Himachal
Pradesh, before the trial Court/authorities concerned, and the trial
court/authorities shall not insist for production of a certified copy, but if
required, passing of order can be verified from Website of the High
Court or otherwise.
(Vivek Singh Thakur),
th
16 November, 2022 Judge.
(Keshav)
