Himachal Pradesh High Court
Date Of Decision: 08.09.2023 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & ... on 8 September, 2023
Bench: Sushil Kukreja
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,
SHIMLA
Cr.MMO No.609 of 2023
.
Date of Decision: 08.09.2023
__________________________________________________________
Rohan Mehta
....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. Vivek Sharma, Advocate.
For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Raj Kumar Negi, Additional
Advocate General.
For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Lakshay Parihar, Advocate.
___________________________________________________________
Sushil Kukreja, Judge (Oral)
The accused (petitioner herein), after
compromising the matter with complainant-respondent
No.2 has come up before this Court under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), by invoking
inherent powers of this Court, seeking quashing of FIR
No.41 of 2020, dated 25.02.2020, under Section 354-D of
1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
the Indian Penal Code (IPC), registered at Police Station
Dhalli, District Shimla, H.P.
.
2. The present FIR was lodged by Complainant-
respondent No.2, Smt. Suman Chauhan, who is duly
represented and identified by Mr. Lakshay Parihar,
Advocate.
3. Today, the complainant/respondent No.2 as well
as the petitioner are present in person and the statement of
complainant/respondent No.2 has been separately recorded
and placed on the file.
4. Complainant/respondent No.2 has stated that on
the basis of her complaint FIR No.41 of 2020, dated
25.02.2020, under Section 354-D of the Indian Penal Code
(IPC), was registered against the petitioner at Police Station
Dhalli, District Shimla, H.P. She further stated that now
with the intervention of the friends, relatives and
respectable persons of the society and in order to create
harmonious relationships between the parties, the matter
has been amicably settled between the parties, vide
Compromise Deed Annexure P-2. She also stated that she
has no objection, if the aforesaid FIR and the consequent
proceedings arising out of the said FIR, pending before the
.
Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court
No.5, Shimla, H.P., are quashed and set aside.
5. I have heard learned 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 offences 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.P.C.
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 the 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, therefore, the same is allowed.
Accordingly, FIR No.41 of 2020, dated 25.02.2020, under
Section 354-D of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), registered at
Police Station Dhalli, District Shimla, H.P., as well as
consequent proceedings arising out of the said FIR, pending
before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,
.
Court No.5, Shimla, H.P., are quashed and set aside.
12. The petition stands disposed of in above terms,
so also the pending application(s), if any.
( Sushil Kukreja )
September 08, 2023 Judge
(subhash)
