Himachal Pradesh High Court
Suresh Kumar & Others vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 11 October, 2023
Bench: Sushil Kukreja
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr.MMO No. 1040 of 2022
alongwith Cr. Revision No. 222 of 2021
Date of Decision: 11.10.2023
.
_________________________________________________
1. Cr. Revision No. 222 of 2021:
Suresh Kumar & others ....Petitioners
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent
2. Cr.MMO No. 1040 of 2022:
Suresh Kumar & others
r to ....Petitioners
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & others ...Respondents
_________________________________________________
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
________________________________________________
In Cr. Revision No. 222 of 2021:
For the petitioners: Mr. Parav Sharma, Advocate.
For the respondent State: Mr. Jitender Sharma,
Additional Advocate General.
In Cr.MMO No. 1040 of 2022:
For the petitioners: Mr. Parav Sharma, Advocate.
For respondent No. 1/State: Mr. Jitender Sharma,
Additional Advocate General.
For respondents No. 2 & 3: Mr. Ajay Kumar Dhiman,
Advocate.
1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 12/10/2023 20:36:40 :::CIS
2
________________________________________________
Sushil Kukreja, Judge (Oral)
Since both these petitions are the offshoots of
.
FIR No. 27 of 2008, dated 08.02.2008, registered against the
petitioners/accused persons, under Sections 452, 354, 323,
325 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short
'IPC'), they are being taken up together for disposal.
2. The petitioners (accused persons) have preferred
a petition (Criminal Revision No. 222 of 2021) under Section
397 of Cr.P.C. against the judgment, dated 27.08.2021,
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hamirpur,
H.P., in Criminal Appeal No. 14 of 2016, whereby the
judgment of conviction, dated 09.05.2016, and order of
sentence, dated 11.05.2016, in Criminal Case No. 89-I/2008,
passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Nadaun, District Hamirpur, H.P., was upheld, with a prayer to
allow the petition by quashing and setting-aside the
impugned judgments and order of sentence.
3. The accused persons (petitioners herein), after
compromising the matter with the complainant/
respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2, have also come up
before this Court, by filing petition (Cr.MMO No.
1040 of 2022) under Section 482 Cr.P.C., by invoking
inherent powers of this Court, seeking quashing of FIR No.
27 of 2008, dated 08.02.2008, under Sections 452, 354, 323,
.
325 read with Section 34 IPC, registered at Police Station
Nadaun, District Hamirpur, H.P..
4. The FIR in question was lodged by the
complainant-Smt. Trishla Devi (respondent No. 2 in Cr.MMO
No. 1040 of 2022), and on 16.06.2023 her statement had
been separately recorded and placed on the file.
5. In her statement, complainant-Smt. Trishla Devi,
stated that on the basis of her complaint, FIR No. 27 of 2008,
dated 08.02.2008, under Sections 452, 354, 323, 325 read
with Section 34 of IPC was registered against the petitioners-
accused persons at Police Station Nadaun, District Hamirpur,
H.P.. She has further stated that now, both the parties have
compromised the matter with the intervention of respectable
persons of the society and settled the dispute outside the
Court amicably, vide compromise deed, Annexure P-4. She
has also stated that in view of the compromise, she has no
objection in case the aforesaid FIR as well as the judgment
of conviction, dated 09.05.2016, and order of sentence,
dated 11.05.2016, passed by the learned Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Nadaun, District Hamirpur, H.P., and
affirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
.
Hamirpur, H.P., dated 27.08.2021, are quashed and set-
aside.
6. Similarly, today, Smt. Shiwani Jamra (respondent
No. 2 in Cr.MMO No. 1040 of 2022) is present before this
Court and her statement has also been separately recorded
and placed on the file.
7. Smt. Shiwani Jamra (injured) stated that on the
basis of the complaint of respondent No. 2, FIR No. 27 of
2008, dated 08.02.2008, under Sections 452, 354, 323, 325
read with Section 34 IPC, was registered against the
petitioners-accused persons at Police Station Nadaun,
District Hamirpur, H.P.. She has further stated that now,
both the parties have compromised the matter with the
intervention of respectable persons of the society and settled
the dispute outside the Court amicably, vide compromise
deed, AnnexureP-4. She has also stated that in view of the
compromise, she has no objection in case the aforesaid FIR
as well as the judgment of conviction, dated 09.05.2016, and
the order of sentence, dated 11.05.2016, passed by the
learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nadaun, District
Hamirpur, H.P., and affirmed by the learned Additional
.
Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, H.P., dated 27.08.2021, are
quashed and set-aside.
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the
petitioners, learned Additional Advocate General for
respondent/State as well as the learned counsel for
respondent No. 2 and 3 (in Cr.MMO No. 1040 of 2022) and
also gone through the material available on record.
9. 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.PC, 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.PC 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.
10. 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.PC. has recognized
that these powers are not inhibited by provisions of Section
.
320 Cr.PC.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. In the instant cases, it is not disputed that the
.
parties have reached a settlement and on that basis the
petitioners/accused persons have preferred the present
proceedings (Cr.MMO No. 1040 of 2022) seeking
quashment of the FIR and also a petition under Section 397
Cr.P.C. (Criminal Revision No. 222 of 2021) with a prayer to
quash and set-aside the judgment, dated 27.08.2021,
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hamirpur,
H.P., in Criminal Appeal No. 14 of 2016, wherein the
judgment of conviction dated 09.05.2016, and order of
sentence dated 11.05.2016, passed by the learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nadaun, District
Hamirpur, H.P., in Criminal Case No. 89-I-2008, was
affirmed. Once respondent No. 2 (complainant) and
respondent No. 3, who are the victims and the worst affected
persons do not want to hold the petitioners responsible, the
quashing of such FIR would definitely be to secure the ends
of justice and to prevent abuse of process of the Court.
The facts of this case otherwise do not in any
manner fall within the exceptions laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court where compromise cannot be entered into or
the proceedings cannot be quashed. Moreover, the Hon'ble
.
Apex Court in the judgments supra, has observed that power
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not to be exercised in those
cases which involve heinous and serious offences of mental
depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc.. In the
present case, complainant/injured persons are not interested
in pursuing the criminal case against the petitioners and
want to maintain cordial relations with one another to live
their lives peacefully, as such no fruitful purpose would be
served in continuing with the criminal proceedings against
the petitioners/accused persons.
14. Hence, considering the facts and the
circumstances of the case in entirety, I am of the opinion that
the present petitions deserve to be allowed for securing the
ends of justice and, therefore, the same are allowed.
Accordingly, FIR No. 27 of 2008, dated 08.02.2008,
registered against the petitioner-accused persons, under
Sections 452, 354, 323, 325 read with Section 34 of Indian
Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), at Police Station Nadaun,
District Hamirpur, H.P., is ordered to be quashed.
Consequently, the judgment of conviction, dated 09.05.2016,
and order of sentence dated 11.05.2016, passed by learned
.
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nadaun, District
Hamirpur, H.P., and affirmed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, H.P., dated 27.08.2021, are also
ordered to be quashed and set-aside.
15. Petitions stand disposed of in above terms, so
also the pending application(s), if any.
( Sushil Kukreja )
th
11 October, 2023 Judge
(virender)
