Himachal Pradesh High Court
Date Of Decision: 04.10.2024 vs State Of H.P. & Others on 4 October, 2024
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
2024:HHC:9599
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr.MMO No.974 of 2024
Date of Decision: 04.10.2024
_______________________________________________________
Naresh Kumar & others .......Petitioners
Versus
State of H.P. & others ... Respondents
_______________________________________________________
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? 1
For the Petitioners: Mr. Rohit Thakur, Advocate vice Mr.
Ganesh Barowalia, 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/State.
Mr. Gambhir Singh Chauhan, Advocate, for
respondent No.2 to 6.
_______________________________________________________
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 petitioners for quashing of FIR No.127 of 2024, dated
28.08.2024, under Sections 77, 115(2), 117(2), 190, 191(2), 351(3)
and 352 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, registered at police Station
Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour, 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
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2024:HHC:9599
se parties, 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 FIR, sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings,
came to be lodged at the behest of respondent No.2, Satbir Singh
(hereinafter referred to as the complainant), who alleged that on
28.08.2024, at 4.00 PM, while he alongwith his wife Kamlesh Kaur
(respondent No.3) and son Randeep Singh (respondent No.4) had
come to village Satiwala at Paonta Sahib for cremation of his brother-
in-law and his wife respondent No.3 i.e. had gone to attend the call of
nature in nearby bushes, persons, namely Rakesh and Ram Kishan
(petitioners Nos.2 and 4) not only behaved indecently, but also
attempted to outrage her modesty. He alleged that when he alongwith
his son objected to aforesaid indecent behaviour of persons named
hereinabove, they alongwith persons, namely Naresh Kumar,
Abhishek Panwar and Rakesh Kumar came on the spot with deadly
weapon and attacked him as well as his wife, as a result thereof, they
all suffered injuries. In the aforesaid background, FIR, sought to be
quashed, came to be instituted against the petitioners, but before the
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, petitioners have
approached this Court in the instant proceedings for quashing of the
2024:HHC:9599
FIR as well as consequent proceedings pending in the competent
Court of law.
3. Pursuant to order dated 01.10.2024, respondent-State
has filed status report, which is silent about the compromise.
However, respondent No.2/complainant Satbir Singh alongwith his
wife Kamesh Kaur, son Randeep Singh, Navneet Singh and Rishipal
Singh have come present and are being represented by Mr. Gambhir
Singh Chauhan, Advocate. They state on oath before this Court that
they of their own volition and without there being any external
pressure have entered into the compromise with the petitioners,
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, coupled with the fact that
petitioners have already apologized for their misbehaviour and have
undertaken not to repeat such act in future and as such, 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 FIR as
well as consequent proceedings, if any, pending adjudication in the
competent Court of law, is accepted. While admitting the contents of
the compromise placed on record to be correct, they also admit their
signatures upon the same. Their statements are taken on record.
4. Mr. Ravi Chauhan learned Deputy Advocate General,
after having heard the aforesaid statements made by the respondents
2024:HHC:9599
No.2 to 6, 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 respondents No.2 to 6 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
2024:HHC:9599
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.
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
2024:HHC:9599
taken by Hon'ble Apex Court has been further reiterated in Gian
Singh v. State of Punjab and anr. (2012) 10 SCC 303.
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
2024:HHC:9599
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.
10. In the case at hand also, offences alleged to have been
committed by the petitioners 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 petitioners and respondent Nos. 2 to 6 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.127 of
2024, dated 28.08.2024, under Sections 77, 115(2), 117(2), 190,
191(2), 351(3) and 352 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, registered at
police Station Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour, Himachal Pradesh as
well as consequent proceedings, if any, pending adjudication in the
competent Court of law, are quashed and set aside. Accused are
acquitted of the charges framed against them.
2024:HHC:9599
12. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms,
alongwith all pending applications.
13.
(Sandeep Sharma),
Judge
October 04, 2024
(shankar)
