Himachal Pradesh High Court
Imran Akhtar & Another vs Of on 5 December, 2023
Author: Sushil Kukreja
Bench: Sushil Kukreja
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr.MMO No. 1229 of 2023
alongwith Cr. Revision No. 159 of 2014
Date of Decision: 05.12.2023
.
_________________________________________________
1. Cr. Revision No. 159 of 2014:
Imran Akhtar & another ....Petitioners
Versus
of
State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent
2. Cr.MMO No. 1229 of 2023:
Imran Akhtar & another ....Petitioners
rt Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & others ...Respondents
_________________________________________________
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
________________________________________________
In Cr. Revision No. 159 of 2014:
For the petitioners: Mr. Tara Singh Chauhan,
Advocate.
For the respondent State: Mr. Raj Kumar Negi,
Additional Advocate General.
In Cr.MMO No. 1229 of 2023:
For the petitioners: Mr. Tara Singh Chauhan,
Advocate.
For respondent No. 1/State: Mr. Raj Kumar Negi,
Additional Advocate General.
For respondent No. 2: Mr. R.L. Chaudhary, Advocate.
________________________________________________
1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 07/12/2023 20:32:12 :::CIS
2
Sushil Kukreja, Judge (Oral)
Since both these petitions are the offshoots of
FIR No. 341 of 2003, dated 16.10.2003, registered against
.
the petitioners/accused persons, under Sections 341, 323
and 325 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short
'IPC'), registered at Police Station Sadar, District Bilaspur,
H.P., they are being taken up together for disposal.
of
2. The petitioners (accused persons) have preferred
a petition (Criminal Revision No. 159 of 2014) under Sections
rt
397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. against the judgment, dated
13.06.2014, passed by the learned Sessions Judge,
Bilaspur, H.P., in Criminal Appeal No. 14 of 2010, whereby
the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, dated
06.12.2010, in Case No. 259/2 of 2003, passed by the
learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bilaspur, H.P., was
upheld, with a prayer to allow the petition by quashing and
setting-aside the impugned judgments and order of
sentence.
3. The accused persons (petitioners herein), after
compromising the matter with the injured, i.e.,
respondent No. 2, have also come up before
this Court, by filing petition (Cr.MMO No. 1229 of
2023) under Section 482 Cr.P.C., by invoking inherent
powers of this Court, seeking quashing of FIR No. 341 of
2003, dated 16.10.2003, under Sections 341, 323 and 325
.
read with Section 34 IPC, registered at Police Station Sadar,
District Bilaspur, H.P..
4. The FIR in question was lodged by the
complainant-Shri Rattan Lal (respondent No. 3 in Cr.MMO
of
No. 1229 f 2023), and today, i.e., 05.12.2023, the statement
of the respondent No. 2-Smt. Jarina (injured) has been
rt
separately recorded and placed on the file.
5. In her statement, respondent No. 2-Smt. Jarina
stated that FIR No. 341 of 2003, dated 16.10.2003, under
Sections 341, 323, 325 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC
was registered against the petitioner/accused persons at
Police Station Sadar, District Bilaspur, H.P., and the learned
Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bilaspur, H.P., vide judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 06.12.2010,
convicted both the accused persons for the offence under
Sections 341, 323 and 325 read with Section 34 IPC and
sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for one
month for the offence under Section 341 IPC, simple
imprisonment for six months under Section 323 IPC and
simple imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs.1000/-
under Section 325 IPC. The learned Appellate Court had
affirmed the findings of the learned Trial Court, vide judgment
.
dated 13.06.2014. She has further stated that during the
pendency of the revision petition filed by the accused
persons before this Court, with the intervention of near
relatives/friends and in order to have cordial relations in
of
future, both the parties have entered into a compromise, vide
compromise deed, Annexure P-4, therefore, in view of the
rt
compromise arrived at between the parties, she does not
want to pursue the abovementioned criminal case anymore
and has no objection in case the aforesaid FIR and the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
06.12.2010, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st
Class, Bilaspur, H.P., and affirmed by the learned Appellate
Court, vide judgment dated 13.06.2014, are quashed and set
aside and both the accused persons are acquitted of the
offences under Section 341, 323 and 325 read with Section
34 IPC.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the
petitioners, learned Additional Advocate General for the
respondent/State as well as the learned counsel for
respondent No. 2 (in Cr.MMO No. 1229 of 2023) and also
gone through the material available on record.
7. 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.PC, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that
of
these powers are to be exercised to secure the ends of
justice or to prevent abuse of process of any Court and these
rt
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 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.PC 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
of
clarified that this power does not extend to crimes against
society. rt
8. 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.PC. has recognized
that these powers are not inhibited by provisions of Section
320 Cr.PC.
9. 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.
10. In Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab,
(2008) 4 SCC 582, the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasized
of
and advised that in the matter of compromise in criminal
proceedings, keeping in view the nature of the case, to save
rt
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.
11. In the instant case, it is not disputed that the
parties have reached a settlement and on that basis the
petitioners/accused persons have preferred the present
proceedings (Cr.MMO No. 1229 of 2023) seeking
quashment of the FIR. The petitioners/accused persons
have also filed a petition under Sections 397 and 401
Cr.P.C. (Criminal Revision No. 159 of 2014) with a prayer to
quash and set-aside the judgment, dated 13.06.2014,
passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, H.P., in
Criminal Appeal No. 14 of 2010, wherein the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 06.12.2010, passed
by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bilaspur, H.P, in
.
Case No. 259/2 of 2003, was affirmed. Once the injured
(Smt. Jarina, respondent No. 2 in Cr.MMO No. 1229 of
2023), who is the victim and the worst affected person does
not want to hold the petitioners/accused persons
of
responsible, the quashing of such FIR would definitely be to
secure the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of process of
rt
the Court. The facts of this case otherwise do not in
any manner fall within the exceptions laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court where compromise cannot be
entered into or the proceedings cannot be quashed.
Moreover, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgments supra,
has observed that power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not to
be exercised in those cases which involve heinous and
serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder,
rape, dacoity, etc.. In the present case, the injured/victim is
not interested in pursuing the criminal case against the
petitioners and want to maintain cordial relations with them
to live their lives peacefully, as such no fruitful purpose
would be served in continuing with the criminal proceedings
against the petitioners/accused persons.
12. Hence, considering the facts and the
.
circumstances of the case in entirety, I am of the opinion that
the present petitions deserve to be allowed for securing the
ends of justice and, therefore, the same are allowed.
Accordingly, FIR No. 341 of 2003, dated 16.10.2003,
of
registered against the petitioners-accused persons, under
Sections 341, 323, 325 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC, at
rt
Police Station Sadar, District Bilaspur, H.P., is ordered to be
quashed. Consequently, the judgment of conviction and
order of sentence, dated 06.12.2010, passed by learned
Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, H.P.,
and affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, H.P.,
vide judgment dated 13.06.2014, are also ordered to be
quashed and set-aside.
13. In view of the above, Cr.MMO No. 1229 of 2023
as well as Criminal Revision No. 159 of 2014, stand
disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.
( Sushil Kukreja )
th
5 December, 2023 Judge
(virender)
