Gurjit Singh & Ors vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 5732 HP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr. MMO No.408 of 2023.

Date of Decision: 12 th May, 2023.

.

       Gurjit Singh & ors.                                        .....Petitioners.





                                          Versus

       State of Himachal Pradesh & ors.                           .....Respondents.





       Coram

Hon'ble Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?1

For the petitioner: Mr. N.K. Thakur, Sr. Advocate with Mr.

Karan Veer Singh, Advocate.

For the respondents: Mr. Navlesh Verma, Addl, AG, Ms. Leena Guleria and Ms. Seema Sharma, Dy.

                                          Advocates      General, for   respondent
                            r             No.1.
                                          Mr.     Nitish    Negi,  Advocate,   for

                                          respondents No.2 and 3.


                Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

The instant petition has been moved under Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure for quashing of FIR No.426 of 2020, dated 17.11.2020, under

Sections 342, 323, 147, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police

Station Una, District Una, H.P. as well as for setting aside consequential proceedings

pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.2, Una, District

Una, H.P, in Police Challan No.171/2021 (State of H.P. vs. Gurjit Singh & ors).

2. The FIR in question was registered against the petitioners on the basis

of complaint filed by respondent No.2/Hardev Singh. His allegations were that on

17.11.2020 around 10:00 a.m, he received a telephonic call from his cousin

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

Sukhwinder Singh (respondent No.3) about a fight taking place near sand dumping

site Fatehpur. He further alleged that on receiving the phone call, he went to the

site. A scuffle took place there between the petitioners and respondents No.2 & 3,

.

causing injuries to respondent No.3. On the basis of these allegations, the FIR was

registered.

3. To seek quashing of the FIR and for setting aside the resultant judicial

proceedings, attention has been drawn to a compromise deed dated 28.01.2023

(Annexure P-3) executed between the parties. In terms of the said compromise, the

parties have settled their dispute amicably between them.

4. Respondent No.3 attended today's hearing. His statement was

recorded on oath. Respondent No.3 stated that he had voluntarily executed

compromise deed dated 28.01.2023. That he had good relations with the petitioners

and in order to maintain such relations, he had entered into compromise with the

petitioners. Respondent No.3 has unequivocally stated that he has no objection in

case, the FIR in question, alongwith judicial proceeding, arising therefrom are

quashed and set aside.

5. The petitioners have also attended today's hearing. They have been

identified by their learned counsel. In their separate statement recorded today,

petitioners have stated that they were not involved in any offence alleged against

them in the FIR. That they enjoyed cordial relations with respondent No.3. The

petitioners have prayed for quashing of FIR in question and for setting aside resultant

judicial proceedings in view of statement of respondent No.3 and the compromise

effected between the parties.

6. Learned Deputy Advocate General has fairly submitted that in view of

the status report she has no objection for allowing the prayer made in the petition.

7. The law laid down in respect of exercise of powers under Section 482

.

of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing or for refusing to quash the FIR and

resultant proceedings on the basis of compromise effected by the parties in (2012)

10 SCC 303 titled Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab; (2014) 6 SCC 466 titled

Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab; (2017) 9 SCC 641 titled as Parbatbhai

Aahir vs. State of Gujarat, has been noticed again by Hon'ble Apex Court in

(2019) 5 SCC 688 , titled as State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan with

following observations:-

" 15 . Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of this Court on the point, referred to hereinabove, it is observed and held as under:

15.1 That the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non-

compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial

transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves;

15.2. Such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved heinous and serious offences

of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society;

15.3 Similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender;

15.4 Offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act etc. would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal proceedings for the offence under Section 307 IPC

.

and/or the Arms Act etc. which have a serious impact on the

society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code, on the ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst themselves. However,

the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution

has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to framing the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons

used etc. However, such an exercise by the High Court

would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and the charge sheet is filed/charge is framed and/or during the trial. Such exercise is not permissible when the matter is still under investigation. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in paragraphs 29.6 and

29.7 of the decision of this Court in the case of Narinder Singh (supra) should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove;

15.5 While exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non-

compoundable offences, which are private in nature and do not have a serious impart on society, on the ground that there is a settlement/compromise between the victim and

the offender, the High Court is required to consider the antecedents of the accused; the conduct of the accused, namely, whether the accused was absconding and why he was absconding, how he had managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise etc."

Applying the above guidelines to the instant case, in view of the

compromise entered into by the private parties, the statements made by them and

in view of the amicable settlement arrived at between the parties, no fruitful

purpose will be served in continuing with the proceedings in question. The present

case, because of its peculiar facts noticed above, does not fall within the exceptions

.

carved out by the Hon'ble Apex Court where amicable settlement arrived at between

the parties cannot be acted upon for quashing the FIR and the consequent

proceedings. The possibility of conviction in such circumstances would be very very

remote. The continuation of the proceedings will be to the great detriment of the

petitioners causing them unnecessary harassment and injustice. When the

complainant does not want to hold the accused person responsible, then quashing of

such FIR would certainly be in the interest of justice.

Consequently, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.426 of 2020

dated 17.11.2020, under Sections 342, 323, 147, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal

Code, registered at Police Station Una, District Una, H.P, is quashed and judicial

proceedings pending before the learned Court below, are set aside.

The petition stands disposed of accordingly, so also pending

miscellaneous application(s) if any.

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 12th May, 2023 (CS)