_________________________________________________ vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 9009 HP

                                                1

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

                                   Cr.MMO No. 478 of 2023




                                                                                       .
                               Date of Decision: 06.07.2023





    _________________________________________________
     Gurvansh & another                       ....Petitioners
                        Versus





    State of Himachal Pradesh & another      ...Respondents
    _________________________________________________
    Coram
    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge.




    Whether approved for reporting?1
    ________________________________________________
    For the petitioners:                            Mr. Sanjay Ranta, Advocate.
    For respondent No 1:
                               r                    Mr. Raj Kumar Negi, Additional

                                                    Advocate General.
    For respondent No. 2:        Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate.
    ________________________________________________
    Sushil Kukreja, Judge (Oral)

The accused persons (petitioners herein), after

compromising the matter with complainant/respondent No.2,

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

by invoking inherent powers of this Court, seeking quashing

of FIR No. 0007 of 2022, dated 08.11.2022, under Sections

324 and 506 of Indian Penal, registered at Police Station

Sanjauli, District Shimla, H.P..

2. The present FIR was lodged by Complainant-

respondent No. 2, Shri Varun Chauhan, who is duly

represented and identified by Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate.

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

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

the petitioners-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 his statement, complainant/respondent No.2

stated that on the basis of his complaint, FIR No. 0007 of

2022, dated 08.11.2022, under Sections 324 and 506 IPC,

was registered against the petitioners/accused at Police

Station Sanjauli, District Shimla, H.P.. He has further stated

that now with the intervention of the friends, relatives and the

respectable persons of the locality and in order to keep

peace and good relations in future, they have entered into a

compromise, vide Compromise Deed, Annexure P-2. He has

also stated that in view of the compromise, he has no

objection in case the aforesaid FIR and the consequent

proceedings arising out of th said FIR, pending before the

Juvenile Justice Board, Shimla, H.P., are quashed and set

aside.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners,

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

quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the

settlement with direction to continue with criminal

proceedings.

9. to 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 petitioners/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. 00007 of 2022, dated 08.11.2022,

under Sections 324 and 506 IPC, registered against the

petitioners-accused, at Police Station Sanjauli, District

Shimla H.P., and the consequent proceedings arising out of

the said FIR, pending before the Juvenile Justice Board,

Shimla, 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
    6 July, 2023                                         Judge
          (virender)