Rajender Kumar Saini vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 690 HP

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
                                                        Cr.MMO No. 18 of 2023
                                                      Decided on: 11th January, 2023

    Rajender Kumar Saini                                                            ...Petitioner
                                 Versus




                                                                                   .
    State of Himachal Pradesh & another                                            ...Respondents





    Coram
    The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.





    Whether approved for reporting?1

    For the petitioner:                          Mr. Atul Kumar, Advocate.
                                                 (Petitioner present in person)





    For respondent No. 1/State:   Mr. Harinder Singh Rawat, Additional
                                  Advocate General.
    For respondent No. 2.         Mr. B.B. Vaid, Advocate.
                                  (Respondent No. 2 present in person)
    ______________________________________________________________________

    Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge. (oral)

The instant petition, under Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.'), has been filed

by petitioner­Rajinder Kumar Saini, on the basis of compromise arrived

at between him and complainant­respondent No. 2­Vinod Kumar, for

quashing FIR No. 233, dated 24.12.2011, registered in Police Station

Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P., under Sections 452, 323 and 506

read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') and

consequent proceedings arising thereto, wherein vide judgment dated

16.01.2020, passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No. 2,

Sunder Nagar, District Mandi, in CIS Case No. (Regtn. No.) 1544 of

2013, titled State vs. Rajinder Kumar Soni, petitioner has been

convicted and sentenced.

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

2. Accused­petitioner­Rajinder Kumar Saini, complainant­

respondent No. 2­Vinod Kumar, are present in person, who have been

duly identified by their respective learned counsel and their statements

.

have also been recorded separately.

3. In his statement, respondent No. 2­Vinod Kumar stated

that he is contractor by profession and petitioner­Rajinder Kumar Saini

is his class­fellow. Their families have cordial relations, but during

interregnum period, for certain disputes, they had litigation between

them. For necessity, arisen due to business, he borrowed money from

the family of petitioner­Rajinder Kumar Saini and for repayment

thereof, he had issued three cheques and his father, Hari Chand, had

issued two cheques, in favour of Deep Saini, who is real brother of

Rajinder Kumar Saini. For payment and non­repayment of the

aforesaid amount, a quarrel took place between him and Rajinder

Kumar Saini and, therefore, he lodged an FIR, in reference in present

case. He has further stated that in cheque dishonour cases, he and his

father were convicted in the trial Court and in criminal case, FIR

lodged by him, petitioner­Rajinder Kumar Saini was convicted. Their

families have revived the relations and now they are in visiting and

talking terms with each other. They have decided to forget the past

and live cordial, harmonious and happy life in future and, therefore,

they have compromised all matters pending between them. In five

matters of Negotiable Instruments Act, complaints have been

withdrawn by Deep Saini, in terms of compromise, and now he and his

father have been acquitted. In terms of compromise, he has also

agreed to withdraw FIR in present case and, therefore, he sought

permission to withdraw the complaint for quashing the FIR and

.

compounding present case. He has further stated that cases, i.e.,

Criminal Revisions No. 109 of 2020 and 111 of 2020, both titled Vinod

Kumar vs. Deep Saini & another, Criminal Revision No. 112 of 2020,

titled Hari Chand vs. Deep Saini, Criminal Revision No. 114 of 2020,

titled Hari Chand vs. Deep Saini & another and Criminal Revision No.

117 of 2020, titled Hari Chand vs. Deep Saini, have been allowed by

the Co­ordinate Bench of this Court on 11.01.2023, whereby above

referred cases related to Negotiable Instruments Act, have been

compounded.

4. In his statement, petitioner­Rajinder Kumar Saini,

endorsing statement of complainant­respondent No. 2­Vinod Kumar to

be true and correct and also endorsed the compromise entered between

them in terms of statement made by Vinod Kumar.

5. Three Judges Bench of the Apex Court in Gian Singh vs.

State of Punjab and others, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303,

explaining that High Court has inherent powers 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 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.

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. No doubt Sections 380 and 454 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.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.

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 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.

.

10. Now, the matter has been amicably settled between the

private parties on the basis of compromise arrived at between them. As

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

served to continue the proceedings against the petitioner.

11. 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 accordingly FIR No. 233 of 2011, dated

24.12.2011, registered in Police Station Sunder Nagar, District Mandi,

H.P., is quashed for compounding this case. Consequent to quashing

of FIR, criminal proceedings initiated against petitioner­accused, are

also quashed and consequently conviction and sentence imposed upon

petitioner is also set aside and petitioner is acquitted..

12. Petition stands disposed of in above terms.

13. Parties are permitted to produce/use copy of this order,

downloaded from the web­page of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh,

before the trial Court/authorities concerned, and the said

Court/authorities shall not insist for production of a certified copy but

if required, may verify passing of the order from Website of the High

Court.

                                                   ( Vivek Singh Thakur )
    7th
          January, 2023                                   Judge
          (virender)