Himachal Pradesh High Court
Sandeep Kumar vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Another on 19 November, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr. MMO No. 809 of 2024.
Date of Decision: 19th November, 2024.
Sandeep Kumar .....Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & another .....Respondents.
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the Petitioner: Mr. Atul Verma, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Diwakar Dev Sharma, Additional
Advocate General, for respondent
No.1/ State.
Mr. Ram Kumar, Advocate, vice Mr. Vijay
Panchta, Advocate, for respondent No.2.
Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral).
By way of instant petition filed under Section 528 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, a prayer has
been made on behalf of the petitioner for quashing of FIR
No.87 dated 30.05.2019, under Sections 279, 337 & 338 of
the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station
Jogindernagar, District Mandi, H.P. as well as consequential
proceedings pending before learned Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Joginder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P.
2. The averments contained in the petition, which is
duly supported by an affidavit reveals that on 30.05.2019
complainant/respondent No.2 had got a FIR registered
against the present petitioner under Sections 279, 337 &
338 of the Indian Penal Code. However, during the
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
pendency of proceedings the dispute inter se parties has
been settled amicably vide compromise deed dated
16.08.2024, copy whereof is appended along with the
present petition as Annexure P-1.
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 parties stands amicably settled
between the parties.
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 Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, it is evident that in so far
as Section 279, is concerned, the same is not
compoundable.
7. In this respect, attention of this Court has been
drawn to a 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. 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.87
dated 30.05.2019, under Sections 279, 337 & 338 of the
Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station
Jogindernagar, District Mandi, H.P. as well as consequential
proceedings pending before learned Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Joginder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P. are
quashed.
The petition stands disposed of in the above terms,
so also the pending application(s), if any.
(Bipin Chander Negi)
Judge
19th November, 2024
(Nisha)
