Himachal Pradesh High Court
Date Of Decision: 03.10.2024 vs State Of H.P. & Others on 3 October, 2024
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
2024:HHC:9514
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr.MMO No.942 of 2024
Date of Decision: 03.10.2024
_______________________________________________________
Vinod Kumar .......Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. & others ... Respondents
_______________________________________________________
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? 1
For the Petitioner: Mr. Hirdaya Ram, Advocate.
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 respondent Nos.1 to 3/State.
Mr. Suresh Singh Saini, Advocate, for
respondent No.4.
_______________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral):
By way of instant petition filed under Section 528 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,2023, prayer has been made on
behalf of the petitioner for quashing of FIR No.58 of 2023, dated
24.04.2023, under Sections 336, 429 and 201 IPC, registered at
police Station Nadaun, District Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh as well
as consequent proceedings pending adjudication in the competent
Court of law, on the basis of the compromise arrived inter se parties,
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?
2024:HHC:9514
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.4, Sh. Surjeet
Kharyal (hereinafter referred to as the complainant), who alleged
that on 21.01.2023, at 8.30 PM, main line of electricity leading to his
village had broken and as such, in the morning of 22.01.2023, he
informed person, namely Vinod, Junior T-Mate and requested him to
repair the line. He alleged that since no action was taken by aforesaid
T-mate, his cow at 5.00 PM on 22.01.2023 got trapped in the broken
electricity wire and when he tried to rescue his cow, he also suffered
electric shock. He alleged that on account of electrocution, his cow
died, which used to give 20-25 liters milk every day. He states that on
account of loss of his cow, he suffered loss to the tune of
Rs. 1,00,000/-, but no steps are being taken by the Electricity
Department to adequately compensate him and as such, appropriate
action, in accordance with law, be taken against the accused, named
in the FIR. Though, after completion of the investigation, police has
presented the challan in the competent court of law, but before same
could be taken to its logical end, parties have entered into
compromise, whereby they resolved to settle the dispute amicably
interse them. In the aforesaid background, prayer has been made on
behalf of the petitioner for quashing of the FIR as well as consequent
proceedings.
2024:HHC:9514
3. Pursuant to order dated 25.9.2024, respondent-State has
filed status report under the signature of SHO, police Station Nadaun,
District Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh, which is silent about the
compromise, if any, arrived interse parties. However, respondent/
complainant has come present in Court and is being represented by
Mr. Suresh Singh Saini, 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 they have resolved to settle their dispute amicably interse
them. He states that FIR, sought to be quashed, is result of
misunderstanding because subsequently he came to know that there
was no fault, if any, of the petitioner Vinod Kumar. He states that
since information given by him on 21.03.2023 with regard to breaking
of electricity wire was not received by the petitioner, he could not
reach on the spot well in time and as such, he shall have no objection
in case prayer made on behalf of petitioner for quashing of the FIR as
well as consequent proceedings, if any, pending adjudication in the
competent Court of law, is accepted and petitioner-accused is
acquitted of the charges framed against him. While admitting the
contents of the compromise placed on record to be correct, he also
admits his signatures upon the same. His statement is taken on
record.
4. Mr. B.C.Verma, learned Additional Advocate General,
after having heard the aforesaid statement made by the respondent/
2024:HHC:9514
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 /complainant and as such,
respondent-State shall have no objection in case the prayer made in
the petition is allowed.
5. 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.
6. 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
2024:HHC:9514
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.
7. 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.
2024:HHC:9514
8. 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.P.C. 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.P.C 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.
9. 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
2024:HHC:9514
Singh's case supra for accepting the settlement and quashing the
proceedings.
10. In the case at hand also, offences alleged to have been
committed by petitioner do not involve offences of moral turpitude or
any grave/heinous crime, rather same are petty offences, as such,
this Court deems it appropriate to quash the FIR as well as
consequential proceedings thereto, especially keeping in view the fact
that the petitioner and respondent/complainant have compromised
the matter interse them, in which case, possibility of conviction is
remote and no fruitful purpose would be served in continuing with the
criminal proceedings.
11. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion as well
as law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court (supra), FIR No.58 of
2023, dated 24.04.2023, under Sections 336, 429 and 201 IPC,
registered at police Station Nadaun, District Hamirpur, Himachal
Pradesh as well as consequent proceedings pending adjudication in
the competent Court of law, are quashed and set aside. Accused is
acquitted of the charges framed against him.
12. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms,
alongwith all pending applications.
13.
(Sandeep Sharma),
Judge
October 03, 2024
(shankar)
