Date Of Decision: 06.07.2023 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 9017 HP

                                                1

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA




                                                                                       .
                            Cr.MMO No. 592 of2023 of 2023





                               Date of Decision: 06.07.2023
    _________________________________________________
     Vishwanath Singh





                                               ....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. Ajay Kochhar, Sr. Advocate,
                                          with Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate.
    For respondent No 1:                  Mr. B.N. Sharma, Additional


                                          Advocate General.
    For respondent No. 2: Mr. Varun Chauhan, 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. 79 of 2022, dated 19.09.2022, under Sections 336

and 506 of Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of the Arms

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

Act, registered at Police Station East Shimla, District Shimla,

.

H.P..

2. The present FIR was lodged by Complainant-

respondent No. 2, Shri Mukesh Malhotra, who is duly

represented and identified by Mr. Varun Chauhan, 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 his statement, complainant/respondent No.2

stated that on his complaint, FIR No. 79 of 2022, dated

19.09.2022, under Sections 336 and 506 IPC and Section 25

of the Arms Act, was registered against the

petitioner/accused at Police Station East Shimla, District

Shimla, H.P.. He has further stated that now with the

intervention of friends, elders as well as the respectable

people of the society they have entered into a compromise,

vide Deed of Settlement/Compromise, Annexure P-2. He

has also stated that he has no objection in case the aforesaid

FIR and the consequent proceedings arising out of the said

FIR, pending before the Court of learned Additional Chief

.

Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, District Shimla, H.P., are

quashed and set-aside.

5. I have heard learned Senior 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 r 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. 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. 79 of 2022, dated 19.09.2022, under

Sections 336 and 506 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act,

registered against the petitioner-accused, at Police Station

East Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., and the consequent

proceedings arising out of the said FIR, pending before the

.

Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court

No. 1, District Shimla, H.P. are ordered to be 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
                            r                         Judge

          (virender)