Himachal Pradesh High Court
Date Of Decision: 15.10.2024 vs State Of H.P. & Anr on 15 October, 2024
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
2024:HHC:9749
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr.MMO No.976 of 2024
Date of Decision: 15.10.2024
_______________________________________________________
Vikas Negi & Anr.
.......Petitioners
Versus
State of H.P. & Anr. .....Respondents
_______________________________________________________
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? 1
For the Petitioner: Mr. Ramesh Sharma, 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 No. 1-State.
Mr. S.S.Sood, Advocate, for respondent No.
LHC Suchitra No. 957, IO WPS BCS, Shimla,
District Shimla, HP present in person.
_______________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral):
By way of instant petition filed under Section 528 of
Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, prayer has been made on behalf
of petitioner for quashing of FIR No. 13 of 2023, dated 04.06.2023,
under Sections 354-A, 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal
Code, registered at Women Police Station BCS, Shimla, District
Shimla, H.P., as well as consequent proceedings, if any, pending
adjudication in the competent court of law, on the basis of the
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2024:HHC:9749
compromise arrived inter se parties, whereby they have resolved to
settle the dispute amicably inter se 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 Smt. Rohini
Thakur (hereinafter 'complainant'), wherein she alleged that since
September, 2021 she had been working in Postal Department and in
the month of February, 2022 she has joined Shimla Division and since
then, petitioners-accused, who were also working in same department
had been sexually harassing her on one pretext or the other. She also
alleged that on certain occasions petitioner-accused not only behaved
indecently, but also made an attempt to outrage her modesty. In the
aforesaid background, FIR, as detailed herein above, came to be
lodged against the petitioners-accused under relevant provisions of
Indian Penal Code.
3. Though, after completion of investigation, Police has
already presented challan in the competent Court of law against the
petitioners-accused, but before same could be taken to its logical end,
parties have entered into compromise, whereby they have resolved to
settle the dispute amicably inter se them and as such, petitioners-
accused have approached this Court in the instant proceedings, for
2024:HHC:9749
quashing of FIR as well as consequent proceedings, if any, pending
adjudication in the competent court of law.
4. Pursuant to order dated 03.10.2024, respondent-State
has filed status under the signatures of SHO, Women Police Station
BCS, New Shimla, wherein factum of compromise has been duly
acknowledged. Besides above, complainant has come present in
Court and is being represented by Mr. S.S.Thakur, Advocate. She
states on oath that she of her own volition and without any external
pressure has entered into compromise with the petitioners-accused,
whereby both the parties have resolved to settle the dispute amicably
inter se them. She states that since FIR sought to be quashed is a
result of misunderstanding, coupled with the fact that petitioners-
accused have already apologized for their misbehaviour and have
undertaken not to repeat such in act in future and as such, she shall
have no objection in case, prayer made for quashing of FIR through
instant petition is accepted and petitioners-accused are acquitted of
charges framed against them. While admitting contents of
compromise placed on record to be correct, she also admits her
signature thereupon. Her statement is taken on record.
5. After having heard aforesaid statement made on oath by
the complainant, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate
General, fairly states that no fruitful purpose would be served in case,
2024:HHC:9749
FIR as well as consequent proceedings pending adjudication in the
competent court of law are allowed to sustain. He further states that
otherwise also chances of conviction of the petitioners-accused are
very remote and bleak on account of statement made by the
complainant on oath and as such, this Court may proceed to pass
appropriate orders.
6. The question, which now needs consideration is whether
FIR 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
Section 482 Cr.P.C (hereinafter to be referred to as the "Code") is not
to be exercised in the cases which involve heinous and serious
offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity,
etc., as such offences are not private in nature and have a serious
impact on society?
7. 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 above, clearly depicts
that in para 29.1, Hon'ble Apex Court has returned the findings that
2024:HHC:9749
power conferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C is to be distinguished from
the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under
Section 320 Cr.P.C. No doubt, under Section 482 Cr.P.C, 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.
8. 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:9749
taken by Hon'ble Apex Court has been further reiterated in Gian
Singh v. State of Punjab and anr. (2012) 10 SCC 303.
9. 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 are of a personal nature, burying them would bring
about peace and amity between the two sides.
2024:HHC:9749
10. 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
Singh's case supra for accepting the settlement and quashing the
proceedings.
11. In the case at hand also, offences alleged to have been
committed by the petitioners-accused do not involve offences of moral
turpitude or any grave/heinous crime, rather same are petty offences,
and 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-accused and complainant have compromised
the matter inter se them, in which case, possibility of conviction is
remote and no fruitful purpose would be served in continuing with the
criminal proceedings.
12. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion as well
as law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court (supra), FIR No. 13 of
2023, dated 04.06.2023, under Sections 354-A, 506 read with Section
34 of Indian Penal Code, registered at Women Police Station BCS,
Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., as well as consequent proceedings, if
any, pending adjudication in the competent court of law are quashed
2024:HHC:9749
and set aside. Accused are acquitted of the charges framed against
them.
13. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms,
alongwith all pending applications.
(Sandeep Sharma),
Judge
October 15, 2024
(sunil)
