Himachal Pradesh High Court
Roop Singh vs State Of H.P. & Others on 29 July, 2024
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr.MMO No.576 of 2024
Date of Decision: 29.07.2024
.
_______________________________________________________
Roop Singh .......Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. & others ... Respondents
_______________________________________________________
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? 1
For the Petitioner:
Mr. Arun Kaushal, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr.
B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals,
with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate
General, for respondent Nos.1 to 3/State.
Ms. Ankita, Advocate for respondent No.4.
_______________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral):
By way of instant petition filed under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, prayer has been made on behalf of the
petitioner for quashing of FIR No. 66 of 2024, dated 7.05.2024, under
Sections 323 of IPC and Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children)Act, registered at police Station, Padhar,
District Mandi, H.P., as well as consequent proceedings pending
adjudication in the competent Court of law, on the basis of the
compromise arrived inter se parties (Annexure P-2), whereby both
the parties have resolved to settle their dispute amicably interse them.
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the
record are that FIR, sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings,
.
came to be lodged at the behest of respondent No.4, Sujal, who is
minor and is being represented by his father Sh. Roshan Lal
(hereinafter referred to as the complainant). Aforesaid
respondent/ complainant alleged that since on the date of alleged
incident, he was unable to do proper drawing , Drawing Teacher i.e.
petitioner herein gave him merciless beatings. In the aforesaid
background, FIR, sought to be quashed, came to be lodged against
the petitioner. Though, after completion of the investigation, police
has presented the challan in the competent Court of law, but before
same could be taken to its logical end, parties have entered into
compromise, whereby they resolved to settle their dispute amicably
interse them. In the aforesaid background, petitioner has approached
this Court in the instant proceedings for quashing of the FIR as well
as consequent proceedings pending in the competent court of law.
3. Pursuant to order dated 9.7.2024, respondent-State has
filed status report under the signatures of SHO, Padhar, District
Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, but same is silent about the compromise.
4. Sh. Roshan Lal, father of the complainant Sujal, has
come present and is being represented by Ms. Ankita, Advocate. He
states on oath before this Court that he of his own volition and without
there being any external pressure has entered into the compromise
with the petitioner, whereby both the parties have resolved to settle
their dispute amicably interse them. He states that FIR, sought to be
.
quashed in the instant proceedings, is result of misunderstanding,
coupled with the fact that petitioner has already apologized for his
misbehaviour and has undertaken not to repeat such act in future and
as such, he shall have no objection in case prayer made on behalf of
the petitioner for quashing of the FIR as well as consequent
proceedings, if any, pending adjudication in the competent Court of
law, is accepted and petitioner-accused is acquitted of the charges
framed against him. While admitting the content of the compromise
placed on record to be correct, he also admits his signature upon the
same. His statement is taken on record.
5. After having heard the aforesaid statement made by
father of the complainant, who is minor, Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned
Deputy Advocate General, fairly states that no fruitful purpose would
be served in case FIR as well as consequent proceedings, sought to
be quashed, are allowed to sustain, rather that would unnecessarily
widen the rift interse petitioner and the complainant. He further states
that otherwise also, chances of conviction of petitioner-accused are
very remote and bleak on account of the amicable settlement arrived
interse parties and as such, this Court may pass appropriate orders.
6. True, it is that in the case at hand, complainant is minor
and as such, question which needs determination is to whether father
of the complainant is competent to enter into the compromise on
behalf of the complainant or not?. Section 320(4) of Cr.P.C clearly
.
provides that when the person, who would otherwise be competent to
compound an offence under this section is under the age of eighteen
years or is an idiot or a lunatic, any person competent to contract on
his behalf may, with the permission of the Court compound the
offence. Since complainant in the instant case is minor and petitioner
herein has been charged under Section 323 of IPC, father of the
complainant is competent to enter into the compromise on his behalf,
especially when same appears to be in the interest of the minor.
7. Having regard to the nature of the allegations, coupled
with amicable settlement arrived interse parties, this Court sees no
reason to deny prayer made on behalf of the father of the complainant
to enter into compromise on behalf of his son.
8. The question which now needs consideration is whether
FIR's in question can be ordered to be quashed when Hon'ble Apex
Court in Narinder Singh and others versus State of Punjab and
another (2014)6 SCC 466 has specifically held that power under S.
482 CrPC is not to be exercised in the cases which involve heinous
and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder,
rape, dacoity, etc., since such offences are not private in nature and
have a serious impact on society.
9. At this stage, it would be relevant to take note of the
judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Narinder Singh (supra),
.
whereby the Hon'ble Apex Court has formulated guidelines for
accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to
accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal
proceedings. Perusal of judgment referred to above clearly depicts
that in para 29.1, Hon'ble Apex Court has returned the findings that
power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished
from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences
under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the
Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash criminal
proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable and
where the parties have settled the matter between themselves,
however, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with great
caution. In para Nos. 29 to 29.7 of the judgment Hon'ble Apex Court
has laid down certain parameters to be followed, while compounding
offences.
10. Careful perusal of para 29.3 of the judgment
suggests that such a power is not to be exercised in the cases which
involve 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. Apart from this, offences
committed under special statute like the 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. On the other hand, those
criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil
character, particularly arising out of commercial transactions or arising
out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes may be quashed
when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among
themselves. Aforesaid view taken by Hon'ble Apex Court has been
further reiterated in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and anr. (2012)
10 SCC 303.
11. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case Gian Singh supra
has held that power of the High Court in quashing of the criminal
proceedings or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent power is
distinct and different from the power of a Criminal Court to compound
the offences under Section 320 Cr.P.C. Even in the judgment
passed in Narinder Singh's case, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held
that while exercising inherent power of quashment under Section 482
Cr.P.C the Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of
the crime and its social impact and it cautioned the Courts not to
exercise the power for quashing proceedings in heinous and serious
offences of mental depravity, murder, rape, dacoity etc. However
subsequently, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Dimpey Gujral and Ors. vs.
Union Territory through Administrator, UT, Chandigarh and Ors.
(2013( 11 SCC 497 has further reiterated that continuation of criminal
proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law because
.
the alleged offences are not heinous offences showing extreme
depravity nor are they against the society. Hon'ble Apex Court further
observed that when offences of a personal nature, burying them
would bring about peace and amity between the two sides.
12. Hon'ble Apex Court in its judgment dated 4th October,
2017, titled as Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai
Karmur and others versus State of Gujarat and Another, passed in
Criminal Appeal No.1723 of 2017 arising out of SLP(Crl) No.9549 of
2016, reiterated the principles/ parameters laid down in Narinder
Singh's case supra for accepting the settlement and quashing the
proceedings.
13. In the case at hand also, offences alleged to have been
committed by the petitioner do not involve offences of moral turpitude
or any grave/heinous crime, rather same are petty offences, as such,
this Court deems it appropriate to quash the FIR as well as
consequential proceedings thereto, especially keeping in view the fact
that the petitioner and father of the complainant have compromised
the matter interse them, in which case, possibility of conviction is
remote and no fruitful purpose would be served in continuing with the
criminal proceedings.
14. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion as well
as law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court (supra), FIR No. 66 of
.
2024, dated 7.05.2024, under Sections 323 of IPC and Section 75 of
the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children)Act, registered
at police Station, Padhar, District Mandi, H.P., as well as consequent
proceedings pending adjudication in the competent Court of law are
quashed and set aside. Accused is acquitted of the charges framed
against him.
15. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms,
alongwith all pending applications.
16.
(Sandeep Sharma),
Judge
July 29, 2024
(shankar)
