_________________________________________________ vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 10498 HP

                                                 1

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

                                   Cr.MMO No. 733 of 2023




                                                                                       .
                               Date of Decision: 28.07.2023





    _________________________________________________
     Sunil 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. Gurmeet Bhardwaj,
                               r                     Advocate.

    For respondent No 1:                             Mr. B.N. Sharma, Additional
                                                     Advocate General.
    For respondent No. 2:        Mr. Raj Thakur, Advocate.
    ________________________________________________



    Sushil Kukreja, Judge (Oral)

The accused person (petitioner herein), after

compromising the matter with complainant/respondent No.2,

has come up before this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., by

invoking inherent powers of this Court, seeking quashing of

FIR No. 209 of 2017, dated 22.11.2017, under Sections 279,

337 and 338 of Indian Penal Code and Section 187 of the

Motor Vehicles Act, registered at Police Station Joginder

Nagar, District Kangra, H.P..

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

2. The present FIR was lodged by Complainant-

respondent No. 2, Smt. Seeta Devi, who is duly represented

.

and identified by Mr. Raj Thakur, Advocate.

3. Today, complainant/respondent No.2 as well as

the petitioner-accused are present in person before this

Court and the statement of complainant/respondent No. 2

has been separately recorded and placed on the file.

4. In her statement, complainant/respondent No.2

stated that on the basis of her complaint, FIR No. 209 of

2017, dated 22.11.2017, was registered against the

petitioner/accused at Police Station Joginder Nagar, District

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

intervention of respectable persons of the society the matter

has been amicably settled between the parties, vide

Compromise Deed, Annexure P-2. She has also stated that

she has no objection, in case the aforesaid FIR as well as

the consequent proceedings, arising out of the said FIR,

pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,

Joginder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P., are quashed and set-

aside.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner,

learned Additional 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 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.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 powers are not inhibited by provisions of Section

320 Cr.PC.

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

settlement

proceedings.

with r direction to quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the

to continue with criminal

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. 209 of 2017, dated 22.11.2017, under

Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC and Section 187 of the Motor

Vehicles Act, registered against the petitioner-accused, at

Police Station Joginder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P.., and the

consequent proceedings arising out of the said FIR, pending

before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Joginder

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

12. Petition stands disposed of in above terms, so

also the pending application(s), if any.

                                                    ( Sushil Kukreja )
      th
    28 July, 2023                                        Judge
          (virender)