Himachal Pradesh High Court
Sham Lal & Others vs State Of H.P. & Others on 4 July, 2024
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr.MMO No.539 of 2024 a/w
Cr.MMO No. 540 of 2024
.
Date of Decision: 04.07.2024
_______________________________________________________
1. Cr.MMO No.539 of 2024
Sham Lal & others .......Petitioners
Versus
State of H.P. & others ... Respondents
2. Cr.MMO No.540 of 2024
Gaurav Sood & others .......Petitioners
r Versus
State of H.P. & others ... Respondents
_______________________________________________________
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? 1
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Suri, Advocate, for the
petitioners in Cr.MMO No.539 of 2024.
Mr. Ashok Kumar Tyagi, Advocate, for the
petitioners in Cr.MMO No.540 of 2024.
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 the respondent-State, in both the
petitions.
Mr. Ashok Kumar Tyagi, Advocate, for
respondent Nos.3 to 6 in Cr.MMO No.539 of
2024.
Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Suri, Advocate, for
respondent Nos. 4 to 7 in Cr.MMO No.540 of
2024.
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
_______________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral):
By way of above captioned petitions filed under Section
.
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, prayer has been made on
behalf of the petitioners, in both the petitions, for quashing of FIR No.
167 of 2018, dated 16.10.2018, under Sections 323, 324, 201 and 34
of IPC and FIR No.166 of 2018, dated 16.10.2018, under Sections
451, 323, 324, 504 and 34 of IPC, registered at police Station, Dehra,
District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh 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.
2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the
record are that on 15.10.2018, petitioners in Cr.MMO No.540 of 2024,
namely, Gaurav Sood, Saurav Sood and Ankush Sharma went to
Neelam Dhaba Sunhet, District Kangra, H.P., for having their dinner.
Allegedly, some altercation took place interse above named
petitioners as well as owner of the Dhaba, namely Sham Lal and
other workers, who are petitioners in Cr.MMO No.539 of 2024.
Unfortunately, altercation took ugly turn and both the parties gave
beatings to each other, as a result thereof, cross FIRs, as detailed
hereinabove, came to be lodged at police Station, Dehra, District
Kangra, Himachal Pradesh under relevant provisions of law. Though,
after completion of the investigation in both the FIRs, police presented
the challans in the competent Court of law, but before same could be
.
taken to its logical end, parties, who had actually filed cross FIRs
against each other arrived at a amicable settlement, whereby they
agreed to settle their dispute amicably interse them. After having
recorded compromise (Annexure P-2), which has been placed on
record, both the parties by way of separate petitions bearing No.
Cr.MMO No.539 of 2024 and Cr.MMO No. 540 of 2024 have
approached this Court in the instant proceedings for quashing of FIRs
as well as consequent proceedings, if any, pending in the competent
Court of law.
3. Vide order dated 21.06.2024 passed in both the petitions,
this Court view a view to ascertain the correctness and genuineness
of the compromise arrived interse parties, deemed it necessary to
cause presence of the parties, especially the complainants. Besides
above, this Court also called upon the respondent-State to file status
report, specifically stating therein factum, if any, of the compromise
arrived interse parties. In both the cases, respondent-State has filed
status report under the signatures of the SHO, police Station Dehra,
District Kangra, H.P., wherein factum of compromise arrived interse
parties has been duly acknowledged.
4. Both the parties have also come present and they are
being represented by Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Suri and Mr. Ashok Kumar
Tyagi, Advocates respectively. Complainants, in both the petitions,
namely, Saurav Sood and Sham Lal state on oath before this Court
.
that they of their own volition and without there being any external
pressure have entered into the compromise, whereby they have
resolved to settle their dispute amicably interse them. They state that
FIR, sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings, is result of
misunderstanding. They state that since both the parties have
apologized for their misbehaviour and have undertaken not to repeat
such act in future, they shall have no objection in case FIRs lodged at
their behest are quashed and set aside and petitioners-accused, as
detailed hereinabove, are acquitted of the charges framed against
them. While admitting the content of the compromise placed on
record to be correct, they also admit their signatures upon the same.
Their statements are taken on record.
5. Besides above, other accused, named in both the FIRs
namely, Gaurav Sood, Ankush Sharma, Sham Lal, Ganesh Kumar,
Sanjeev Kumar and Bishamber have also come present. They also
state on oath before this Court that they of their own volition and
without there being any external pressure have entered into the
compromise, whereby they have resolved to settle their dispute
amicably interse them. They state that FIR, sought to be quashed in
the instant proceedings, is result of misunderstanding and on account
of amicable settlement arrived interse them, they do not wish to
prosecute the case further and shall have no objection in case prayer
made on behalf of the petitioners for quashing of the FIRs is
.
accepted. While admitting the content of the compromise placed on
record to be correct, they also admit their signatures upon the same.
Their statements are taken on record.
6. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General,
after having heard the aforesaid statements made by the
respondents/ complainants, in both the cases, 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 petitioners-
accused are very remote and bleak in view of the statements made by
the complainants/respondents as such, respondent-State shall have
no objection in case the prayer made in the petition is allowed.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.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.
11. 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.
12. In the cases at hand, offences alleged to have been
committed by the petitioners are petty offence coupled with the fact
that the petitioners and complainants/respondents have compromised
the matter, as such, no fruitful purpose would be served in continuing
with criminal prosecution of the petitioners. 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.
13. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion as well
as law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court (supra), FIR No. 167 of
2018, dated 16.10.2018, under Sections 323, 324, 201 and 34 of IPC
and FIR No.166 of 2018, dated 16.10.2018, under Sections 451, 323,
324, 504 and 34 of IPC, registered at police Station, Dehra, District
.
Kangra, Himachal Pradesh as well as consequent proceedings, if
any, pending adjudication in the competent Court of law, are quashed
and set aside. Petitioners-Accused are acquitted of the charges
framed against them.
14. The petitions stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms,
alongwith all pending applications.
(Sandeep Sharma),
r Judge
July 04, 2024
(shankar)
