Himachal Pradesh High Court
Harish Kumar vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Anr on 12 May, 2023
Bench: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr. MMO No.347 of 2023.
Date of Decision: 12 th May, 2023.
.
Harish Kumar .....Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & anr. .....Respondents.
Coram
Hon'ble Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the petitioner: Mr. Gobind Korla, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Navlesh Verma, Addl, AG, Ms. Leena
Guleria and Ms. Seema Sharma, Dy.
Advocates General, for respondent
No.1.
r Mr. Diwan Singh Negi, Advocate, for
respondent No.2.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge
The instant petition has been moved under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure for quashing of FIR No.89 of 2022, dated 31.07.2022, under
Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station
Palampur, District Kangra, H.P. as well as for setting aside consequential
proceedings pending before the learned Court below.
The respondent/State has filed fresh status report, which is taken on
2.
record. In terms of the status report, the factum of execution of compromise
between the parties has been verified.
3. To seek quashing of the FIR and setting aside the resultant judicial
proceedings, attention has been drawn to a compromise deed dated 30.01.2023
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
(Annexure P-2) executed between the parties. In terms of the said compromise,
the parties have settled their dispute amicably between them.
4. Respondent No.2 attended today's hearing. His statement was
.
recorded on oath. Respondent No.2 stated that he had voluntary executed
compromise deed dated 30.01.2023. That he had good relations with the
petitioner and in order to maintain such relations, he had entered into compromise
with the petitioner Respondent No.2 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 petitioner has also attended today's hearing. He has been
identified by his learned counsel. In his separate statement recorded today, the
petitioner has stated that he was not involved in any offence alleged against him
in the FIR. That he enjoys cordial relations with the complainant/respondent No.2.
The petitioner has prayed for quashing of FIR in question and for setting aside
resultant judicial proceedings in view of statement of respondent No.2 and the
compromise effected between the parties.
6. Learned Deputy Advocate General has fairly submitted that 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 complainant/respondent No.2, the statement
made by respondent No.2 and in view of the amicable settlement arrived at
between the parties, no fruitful purpose will be served in continuing 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 petitioner causing him
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.89 of 2022
dated 31.07.2022, under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code,
registered at Police Station Palampur, District Kangra, 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)
