Himachal Pradesh High Court
Reeja Thakur vs State Of H.P. & Another on 29 July, 2024
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr.MMO No.490 of 2024
Date of Decision: 29.07.2024
.
_______________________________________________________
Reeja Thakur .......Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. & another ... Respondents
_______________________________________________________
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? 1
For the Petitioner: r Mr. Ravinder Singh Jaswal, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Vinod Sharma, Advocate, for respondent
No.1.
Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr.
B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals, with
Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General,
for respondent No.2/State
_______________________________________________________
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.20 of 2023, dated 14.02.2023, under
Sections 323 and 325 of IPC, registered at police Station, Bhoranj ,
District Hamirpur, H.P., as well as consequent proceedings, if any,
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.1, Sh. Harish Joshi
(hereinafter referred to as the complainant), who alleged that on
7.2.2023, at about 2.30 PM, some altercation took place interse him
and the petitioner and thereafter allegedly petitioner gave beatings to
him with stick, as a result of which, he suffered injuries on his arm.
Though, after completion of the investigation, police has already
presented the Challan in the competent court of law, but before same
could be taken to its logical end, parties have entered into the
compromise, whereby both the parties have 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. In terms of order dated 10.06.2024, respondent-State
has filed status report under the signatures of SHO, police Station,
Bhoranj, District Hamirpur, HP., wherein factum of compromise has
been duly acknowledged, rather alongwith aforesaid status report
copy of the compromise deed arrived interse parties as well as
statement given by the respondent/complainant has been also
enclosed.
4. Respondent No.1/complainant has come present in Court
and is being represented by Mr. Vinod Sharma, 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 her
misbehaviour and has undertaken not to repeat such act in future, 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. While admitting the contents of the compromise placed on
record to be correct, he also admits his signature upon the same. His
statement is taken on record.
5. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General,
after having heard the aforesaid statement made by respondent
No.1/complainant, 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. He further states that otherwise also,
chances of conviction of petitioner- accused are very remote and
bleak in view of the statement made by respondent No.1/complainant
before this Court and as such, respondent-State shall have no
objection in case the prayer made in the petition is allowed.
.
6. 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. Such offences are not private in nature and have a
serious impact on society.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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 for
.
compounding offences under Section 320 Cr.PC. 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.PC 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.
10. 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.
11. In the case at hand, offences alleged to have been
committed by the petitioner are petty offence coupled with the fact
that the petitioner and the complainant have compromised the matter,
as such, no fruitful purpose would be served in continuing with
criminal prosecution of the petitioner. Otherwise also, there are bleak
and remote chances of conviction of accused and as such, this court
sees no impediment in accepting the prayer made by petitioners for
quashing of FIR.
12. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion as well
as law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court (supra), FIR No.20 of
2023, dated 14.02.2023, under Sections 323 and 325 of IPC,
registered at police Station, Bhoranj , District Hamirpur, H.P., as well
as consequent proceedings, if any, pending adjudication in the
competent court of law, are quashed and set aside. Accused is
acquitted of the charges framed against him.
13. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms,
alongwith all pending applications.
(Sandeep Sharma),
Judge
July 29, 2024
(shankar)
