Sanjay Kumar vs State Of H.P. & Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 9493 HP

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

                               Cr.MMO No. 154 of 2022




                                                        .

                               Decided on: 18.11.2022.

    Sanjay Kumar                                    ....Petitioner





                     Versus

    State of H.P. & Anr                              ...Respondents.





    Coram
    The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.
    Whether approved for reporting?

    For the petitioner     :    Mr. Naresh Sharma, Advocate,

    For respondent No.1   :    Mr. Hemant Vaid, Additional
                               Advocate General.


    For respondent No.2   :    Mr. Ashok Kumar Verma, Advocate.


    Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge (Oral)

This petition has been preferred under Section

482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 60 of 2015, dated

26.07.2015, registered under Sections 354, 354-A, 504

and 506 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter in short 'IPC') in

Police Station New Shimla, District Shimla, H.P. and

consequent proceeding arising thereto.

2. Petitioner Sanjay Kumar and respondent No.

2/complainant Anjali are present in the Court and they

have been duly identified by their respective counsel. Their

statements, on oath, have been recorded separately.

.

3. In her statement, complainant-respondent

No.2 Anjali has stated that after lodging FIR, petitioner's

wife, daughter, father as well as petitioner approached

her and apologized for the act and conduct of the

petitioner and they undertook that Sanjay Kumar

(petitioner) shall not repeat such incident in future with

anyone. She further stated that family members of the

petitioner requested not to pursue the criminal case

against the petitioner as it would ruin their entire family

but for deprecable act of the petitioner and, therefore,

she has agreed to forget the past and forgive the

petitioner and has decided not to pursue the criminal

case against the petitioner, and thus has compromised

the matter with petitioner. She has sought permission to

withdraw the complaint lodged by her.

4. Petitioner Sanjay Kumar, endorsing the

statement made by complainant as true and correct, has

undertaken that he will not repeat such act in future and

will behave decently and properly and to be careful in

future.

.

5. Respondent No.2 Anjali and petitioner Sanjay

Kumar, in their respective statements, have endorsed that

they have compromised the matter and deposed in the

Court out of their free will, consent and also without any

6. to kind of threat, coercion or pressure etc.

Quashing of FIR in present petition has been

prayed on the basis of compromise arrived at between the

parties. Both, the petitioner and the complainant, have

endorsed the compromise.

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

recognized that these r to powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has

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 354 and 354 A 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. 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. 60 of 2015, dated

26.07.2015, registered at Police Station New Shimla,

District Shimla, H.P. is quashed. Consequent to quashing

of FIR, criminal proceedings initiated against petitioners-

accused in pursuance thereto, are also quashed.

13. Petition stands disposed of in above terms.

Parties are permitted to use/produce a copy of

this judgment, downloaded from the web-page 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

passing of order from Website of the High Court or

otherwise.

(Vivek Singh Thakur) Judge November, 18, 2022 (himani)