Himachal Pradesh High Court
Date Of Decision: 16.09.2023 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Others on 16 September, 2023
Bench: Sushil Kukreja
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,
SHIMLA
Cr.MMO No.779 of 2023
.
Date of Decision: 16.09.2023
__________________________________________________________
Reshav Hans & Others
....Petitioners
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Others
...Respondents
___________________________________________________________
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge
Whether approved for reporting?1
_________________________________________________________
For the Petitioners : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Suri,
Advocate.
For Respondents : Mr. Raj Kumar Negi, Additional
No.1 to 3. Advocate General.
For Respondent No.4 : Ms. Abhilasha Kaundal,
Advocate.
___________________________________________________________
Sushil Kukreja, Judge (Oral)
The accused (petitioners herein), after
compromising the matter with complainant-respondent
No.4 have 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
1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
No.234 of 2017, dated 20.07.2017, under Sections 341,
323, 504, 506, 451 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and
.
Section 3 of Prevention of Damage of Public Property Act,
registered at Police Station Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P.
2. The present FIR was lodged by Complainant-
respondent No.4, Shri Akshay Kumar and today his
statement has been separately recorded and placed on the
file. r
3. The complainant/respondent No.4 has stated
that on the basis of his complaint FIR No.234 of 2017,
dated 20.07.2017, under Sections 341, 323, 504, 506, 451
& 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), was registered against
the petitioners-accused persons at Police Station Nurpur,
District Kangra, H.P. He further stated that now with the
intervention of elder members of the families and in order to
put an end the enmity between them and also to have good
relationship between the parties, they have entered into a
compromise vide Compromise Deed Annexure P-2 and he
has no objection, in case the aforesaid FIR and the
consequent proceedings, arising out of the said FIR,
pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Court No.1, Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P., are
.
quashed and set aside.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners,
learned Additional Advocate General for respondents No.1 to
3/State as well as the learned counsel for respondent No.4
and also gone through the material available on record.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
.
9. 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 petitioners-accused persons 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.
10. 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.234 of 2017, dated 20.07.2017, under
Sections 341, 323, 504, 506, 451 & 34 of the Indian Penal
Code (IPC) and Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public
Property Act, registered against the petitioners-accused
persons at Police Station Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P., as
well as consequent proceedings, arising out of the said FIR,
.
pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Court No.1, Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P., are
quashed and set aside.
11. The petition stands disposed of in above terms,
so also the pending application(s), if any.
r ( Sushil Kukreja )
September 16, 2023 Judge
(subhash)
