Himachal Pradesh High Court
Anmol Sharma And Others vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others on 6 November, 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr.MMO No.876 of 2024
Date of Decision : 06.11.2024
Anmol 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. Aditya Kaushal, Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. Manish Thakur, Deputy Advocate General, for
respondents No.1 & 2/State.
Ms. Anchal Sharma, Advocate, for respondent
No.3.
Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral)
By way of instant petition filed under Section 528 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, a prayer has been made on
behalf of the petitioners for quashing of FIR No.59 of 2019 dated
03.04.2019, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 201 of the
Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station, Dharamshala, District
Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, as well as consequent judicial proceedings
pending before learned Trial Court.
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
2. Original Compromise Deed (Annexure P-5) has been placed
on record. As per the averments contained in the petition, which is duly
supported by an affidavit, it is revealed that on 03.04.2019, complainant/
respondent No.3 had got a FIR registered against the present petitioners
under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 201 of the Indian Penal
Code. As a sequel thereto, Challan has been presented before the
learned Trial Court. However, during the pendency of proceedings, the
dispute inter se parties has been settled amicably vide Compromise Deed
dated 08.07.2024, copy whereof, is appended along with the present
petition. The Compromise Deed has been entered into at the intervention
of elder relatives and respectable members of the society with an intent to
settle the dispute inter se parties.
3. Statement of complainant/respondent No.3 stands recorded.
He has categorically stated that he has entered into compromise of his
own free will, volition and without any pressure. According to
complainant/respondent No.3, the dispute inter se 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 the parties stands amicably resolved.
6. From a perusal of Section 359 of the Bhartiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, it is evident that Sections 467, 468, 471 and
201 of the Indian Penal Code, are not 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 are to prevent an abuse of the process of any
Court.
8. Further, the Apex Court in Parbatbhai Aahir alias
Parbathbhai 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.
9. 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.
10. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. FIR No.59 of 2019 dated
03.04.2019, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 201 of the
Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station, Dharamshala, District
Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, is quashed and consequent judicial
proceedings pending before learned trial Court, are also quashed.
11. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also
the pending application(s), if any.
( Bipin Chander Negi)
November 06, 2024 (KS) Judge
