Himachal Pradesh High Court
Mukesh Sharma And Others vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others on 2 May, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr. MMO No.318/2024.
Date of Decision: 02 nd May, 2024.
Mukesh Sharma and Others .....Petitioners.
.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Others. .....Respondents.
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the Petitioners: Mr. Yug Singhal, Mr. Hitender Verma and Mr.
Rajinder Chauhan, Advocates.
For the Respondents: Mr. B.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate
General, for respondent No.1/State.
Mr. Somesh Sharma, Mr. Shekhar Badola and
Ms. Ananya Sharma, Advocates, for
r respondents No.2 and 3.
Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral).
By way of instant petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, a prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioners
for quashing of FIR No. 15 dated 09.02.2021 under Sections 323, 504,
147, 149, 506 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code registered at Police
Station Parwanoo, District Solan, H.P, as well as consequent proceedings
before the learned trial Court.
2. The averments contained in the petition, which is duly
supported by an affidavit reveals that on 09.02.2021
complainant/respondent No.2 had got a FIR registered against the
present petitioners under Sections 323, 504, 147, 149, 506 and 427 of
the Indian Penal Code. However, during the pendency of proceedings
the dispute inter se parties has been settled amicably vide compromise
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
dated 04.09.2023, copy whereof is appended along with the present
petition as Annexure P-2.
3. Statement of complainant/respondent No.2 stands recorded.
.
He has categorically stated that he has entered into compromise of his
own free will, volition and without any pressure. According to the
complainant/respondent No.2, the dispute inter se the parties stands
amicably settled.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record carefully.
5.
This Court sees no impediment in quashing the FIR in issue, as
the dispute inter se parties stand amicably resolved.
6. From a perusal of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, it is evident that in so far as Sections 323, 504, 506 and 427
of the Indian Penal Code are concerned, the same are compoundable.
However, Sections 147 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code are cognizable
and bailable offences, which are non-compoundable.
7. In this respect, attention of this Court has been drawn to case
titled Narinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another
reported as (2014) 6 Supreme Court Cases, 466, wherein the Apex
Court has categorically laid down that the High Court has inherent power
to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases, which are not
compoundable, where the parties have amicably settled the matter inter
se them. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with
caution, in cases where settlement is arrived at. The guiding factors
being securing the ends of justice or to prevent an abuse of the process
of any Court.
8. In view of the fact that the parties have entered into
.
compromise permitting the proceedings in pursuance to the aforesaid FIR
sought to be quashed to continue would only result into an abuse of
process and the same would not secure the ends of justice.
9. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and FIR No. 15 dated
09.02.2021 under Sections 323, 504, 147, 149, 506 and 427 of the
Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station Parwanoo, District Solan,
H.P, as well as consequent proceedings before the learned trial Court are
quashed.
10. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the
pending application(s), if any.
(Bipin Chander Negi)
Judge
02nd May, 2024
(KS)
