Date Of Decision: 07.08.2023 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 11087 HP

                                                   1
               IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,
                               SHIMLA




                                                                                     .
                                                              Cr.MMO No.684 of 2023





                                    Date of Decision: 07.08.2023
        __________________________________________________________
         Ajay Kumar





                                                      ....Petitioner

                                                Versus





        State of Himachal Pradesh & Another
                                                    ...Respondents
        ___________________________________________________________
         Coram

        Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge

        Whether approved for reporting?1
        _________________________________________________________
        For the petitioner                  :     Mr. Narender Singh Thakur


                                                  Advocate.
        For respondent No.1                 :     Mr. B.N. Sharma, Mr. Raj Kumar
                                                  Negi, and Mr. Jitender Sharma,




                                                  Additional Advocates General.

        For respondent No.2.    : Mr. Amit Jamwal, Advocate.





        ______________________________________________________________
        Sushil Kukreja, Judge (Oral)

The accused (petitioner herein), after

compromising the matter with complainant-respondent

No.2 has come up before this Court under Section 482 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), by invoking

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

inherent powers of this Court, seeking quashing of FIR

No.0112 of 2019, dated 13.07.2019, under Sections

.

354A(1)(i), 323 & 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC),

registered at Police Station Dharampur, District Mandi,

H.P.

2. The present FIR was lodged by Complainant-

respondent No.2, Smt. Sapna Devi, who is duly

represented and identified by Mr. Amit Jamwal, Advocate.

3. Today, respondent No.2 as well as the petitioner

are present in person and the statement of

complainant/respondent No.2 has been separately

recorded and placed on the file.

4. Complainant/respondent No.2 has stated that

on the basis of her complaint, FIR No.0112 of 2019, dated

13.07.2019, was registered against petitioner, under

Sections 354A(1)(i), 323 & 506 of the Indian Penal Code

(IPC), registered at Police Station Dharampur, District

Mandi, H.P. She further stated that now with the

intervention of certain respectable persons of the locality,

the matter has been amicably settled between the parties,

vide Compromise Deed Annexure P-3. She has further

stated that she has no objection, if the aforesaid FIR and

.

the consequent proceedings arising out of the said FIR,

pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate

First Class, Court No.II, Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P.,

are quashed and set aside.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner,

learned Additional r Advocate General for respondent

No.1/State as well as the learned counsel for respondent

No.2 and also gone through the material available on

record.

6. In Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and

others, 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.P.C., the Hon'ble Apex Court 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 offences 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

offences like murder, rape and dacoity etc. should not be

quashed despite victim or victim's family have settled the

dispute with offender. Jurisdiction vested in High Court

under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is held to be exercisable for

quashing criminal proceedings in cases having

overwhelming and predominately 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.

.

7. Further, 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 r powers are not inhibited by

provisions of Section 320, Cr.P.C.

8. 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, the Hon'ble Supreme

Court 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.

9. 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 the nature of the

case, to save the time of the Court for utilizing to decide

more effective and meaningful litigation, a common sense

approach, based on ground of realities and bereft of the

technicalities of law, should be applied.

10. In the instant case, since the matter has been

amicably settled between the parties, therefore, keeping in

view the nature of the offence, I am of the considered view

that no fruitful purpose will be served to continue the

proceedings against petitioner-accused as continuation of

the proceedings will be an exercise in futility. The justice

in the case demands that the dispute between the parties

is put to an end and peace is restored in order to maintain

harmonious relations/atmosphere between them.

11. Hence, considering the facts and the

circumstances of the case in entirety, I am of the opinion

that the present petition deserves to be allowed for

securing the ends of justice and, therefore, the same is

allowed. Accordingly, FIR No.0112 of 2019, dated

.

13.07.2019, was registered against petitioner, under

Sections 354A(1)(i), 323 & 506 of the Indian Penal Code

(IPC), registered at Police Station Dharampur, District

Mandi, H.P., as well as consequent proceedings arising out

of the said FIR, pending before the Court of learned

Judicial Magistrate First Class Court No. II, Sarkaghat,

District Mandi, H.P., are quashed and set aside.

12. The petition stands disposed of in above terms,

so also the pending application(s), if any.

                                             ( Sushil Kukreja )




    August 07, 2023                               Judge
       (subhash)