Himachal Pradesh High Court
Fauja Singh And Another vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Another on 30 September, 2024
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr.MMO No.417 of 2024
Date of Decision: 30.09.2024
.
__________________________________________________________________________
Fauja Singh and Another
.........Petitioners
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Another
.......Respondents
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?
For the Petitioner: Mr. Sunny Modgil, Advocate (through video
conferencing).
For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.
r Verma, Additional Advocates General, with Mr.
Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for
respondent No.1/State.
Mr. Rajesh Prakash, Advocate, for respondent
No.2.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)
By way of present petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.,
prayer has been made by the petitioners-accused for quashing of FIR
No.110 of 2023, dated 21.11.2023, under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506, 429
and 34 of IPC, registered at Police Station Haripur, District Kangra,
Himachal Pradesh, along with consequential proceedings pending in the
competent Court of law, on the basis of compromise.
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-Mr. Rashpal Singh (hereinafter,
'complainant'), who alleged that 20.11.2023, while he along with his family
members was sleeping in his house, petitioner No.1 namely Fauja Singh,
.
who happens to be his elder brother along with his son unauthorizedly
entered in his house and started hurling abuses. Complainant alleged that
petitioners gave him beatings with sticks and sickle and when his wife tried
to interfere, she was also given beatings by petitioners. In the aforesaid
background, FIR, as detailed hereinabove, came to be instituted against the
petitioners/accused.
3.
Though after completion of the investigation, Police has already
presented Challan in the competent Court of law, but before same could be
taken to its logical end, parties to the lis have decided to settle the dispute
amicably inter se them by way of compromise placed on record and as
such, petitioners have approached this Court in the instant proceedings,
praying therein to quash and set aside the FIR as well as consequent
proceedings pending before the competent Court of law.
4. Pursuant to notices issued in the instant proceedings,
respondent/State has filed status report under the signatures of
Superintendent of Police, Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra,
Himachal Pradesh, wherein factum of compromise has not been
acknowledged, however, complainant has come present in Court and is
being represented by Mr. Rajesh Prakash @ Mandi Sahab, Advocate. He
states on oath that he of his own volition and without there being any
external pressure has entered into compromise with the
petitioners/accused, whereby they have decided to settle their dispute
.
amicably inter se them. He states that FIR sought to be quashed is a result
of misunderstanding and petitioners/accused have already apologized for
their misbehavior/misconduct and have undertaken not to repeat such act
in future. He further states that since petitioner No.1 is his elder brother
and petitioner No.2 is his nephew, as such, with a view to maintain cordial
relations, they have decided not to proceed with the matter, therefore, he
shall have no objection in case aforesaid FIR as well as consequential
proceedings pending in the competent Court of law are quashed and set
aside and the petitioners are acquitted of the offences alleged in the FIR.
While admitting contents of the compromise to be correct, he also admits
his signatures thereupon. His statement made on oath is taken on record.
5. Having heard statement made on oath by respondent No.2-Mr.
Rashal Singh, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, states
that no fruitful purpose will be served in case FIR as well consequent
proceedings are allowed to continue against petitioners. He further states
that otherwise also, chances of conviction of the petitioners are very remote
and bleak, on account of statement made by respondent No.2, as such, he
shall have no objection in case prayer made on behalf of the petitioners is
accepted and FIR in question along with consequential proceedings is
quashed and set aside and petitioners are acquitted.
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 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. Such offences are not
private in nature and have a serious impact on society.
7.
Reliance is placed upon judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in case titled A.M. Mohan v. State, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 339,
relevant para whereof reads as under:
"9. The law with regard to exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.
P.C. to quash complaints and criminal proceedings has been succinctly
summarized by this Court in the case of Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC
India Limited1 after considering the earlier precedents. It will be apposite to
refer to the following observations of this Court in the said case, which read
thus:
"12. The principles relating to exercise of jurisdiction under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash complaints and
criminal proceedings have been stated and reiterated by this Court in
several decisions. To mention a few--Madhavrao Jiwajirao
Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre [(1988) 1 SCC 692 : 1988
SCC (Cri) 234], State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) SCC
335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426], Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh
Gill [(1995) 6 SCC 194 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 1059], Central Bureau of
Investigation v. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd. [(1996) 5 SCC 591 : 1996
SCC (Cri) 1045], State of Bihar v. Rajendra Agrawalla [(1996) 8 SCC
164 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 628], Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi [(1999) 3
SCC 259 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 401], Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P)
Ltd. v. Biological E. Ltd. [(2000) 3 SCC 269 : 2000 SCC (Cri)
615], Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar [(2000) 4 SCC
168 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 786], M. Krishnan v. Vijay Singh [(2001) 8 SCC
645 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 19] and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works
Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque [(2005) 1 SCC 122 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 283].
The principles, relevant to our purpose are:
(i) A complaint can be quashed where the allegations made in the
complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in
their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out
.
the case alleged against the accused.
For this purpose, the complaint has to be examined as a whole, but
without examining the merits of the allegations. Neither a detailed
inquiry nor a meticulous analysis of the material nor an assessment
of the reliability or genuineness of the allegations in the complaint, is
warranted while examining prayer for quashing of a complaint.
(ii) A complaint may also be quashed where it is a clear abuse of the
process of the court, as when the criminal proceeding is found to
have been initiated with mala fides/malice for wreaking vengeance
or to cause harm, or where the allegations are absurd and inherently
improbable.
(iii) The power to quash shall not, however, be used to stifle or scuttle
a legitimate prosecution. The power should be used sparingly and
with abundant caution.
r (iv) The complaint is not required to verbatim reproduce the legal
ingredients of the offence alleged. If the necessary factual foundation
is laid in the complaint, merely on the ground that a few ingredients
have not been stated in detail, the proceedings should not be
quashed. Quashing of the complaint is warranted only where the
complaint is so bereft of even the basic facts which are absolutely
necessary for making out the offence.
(v.) A given set of facts may make out : (a) purely a civil wrong; or (b)
purely a criminal offence; or (c) a civil wrong as also a criminal
offence. A commercial transaction or a contractual dispute, apart
from furnishing a cause of action for seeking remedy in civil law,
may also involve a criminal offence. As the nature and scope of a
civil proceeding are different from a criminal proceeding, the mere
fact that the complaint relates to a commercial transaction or breach
of contract, for which a civil remedy is available or has been availed,
is not by itself a ground to quash the criminal proceedings. The test is
whether the allegations in the complaint disclose a criminal offence
or not.
13. While on this issue, it is necessary to take notice of a growing tendency
in business circles to convert purely civil disputes into criminal cases. This
is obviously on account of a prevalent impression that civil law remedies
are time consuming and do not adequately protect the interests of
lenders/creditors. Such a tendency is seen in several family disputes also,
leading to irretrievable breakdown of marriages/families. There is also an
impression that if a person could somehow be entangled in a criminal
prosecution, there is a likelihood of imminent settlement. Any effort to settle
civil disputes and claims, which do not involve any criminal offence, by
applying pressure through criminal prosecution should be deprecated and
discouraged. In G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P. [(2000) 2 SCC 636 : 2000
SCC (Cri) 513] this Court observed : (SCC p. 643, para 8)
.
"It is to be seen if a matter, which is essentially of a civil nature, has been
given a cloak of criminal offence. Criminal proceedings are not a short cut
of other remedies available in law. Before issuing process a criminal court
has to exercise a great deal of caution. For the accused it is a serious
matter. This Court has laid certain principles on the basis of which the
High Court is to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code.
Jurisdiction under this section has to be exercised to prevent abuse of the
process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice."
14. While no one with a legitimate cause or grievance should be prevented
from seeking remedies available in criminal law, a complainant who initi-
ates or persists with a prosecution, being fully aware that the criminal pro-
ceedings are unwarranted and his remedy lies only in civil law, should
himself be made accountable, at the end of such misconceived criminal pro-
ceedings, in accordance with law. One positive step that can be taken by
the courts, to curb unnecessary prosecutions and harassment of innocent
parties, is to exercise their power under Section 250 CrPC more frequently,
where they discern malice or frivolousness or ulterior motives on the part of
the complainant. Be that as it may."
8. 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 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.
9. 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.
10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and
anr. (2012) 10 SCC 303 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
for compounding offences under Section 320 Cr.PC. 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.PC 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.
11. 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.
12. In the case at hand also, offences alleged to have been
committed by 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 parties have compromised
the matter inter se them, in which case, possibility of conviction is
remote/bleak and no fruitful purpose would be served in continuing with
.
the criminal proceedings.
13. Since parties have compromised the matter with each other
and respondent No.2, at whose instance FIR sought to be quashed in the
instant proceedings came to be lodged, is no more interested in pursuing
the criminal prosecution of the petitioners, this Court sees no impediment
14.
r to
in accepting the prayer made on behalf of the petitioners for quashing of
the FIR along with all consequential proceedings.
Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law
laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court (supra), FIR No.110 of 2023, dated
21.11.2023, under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506, 429 and 34 of IPC,
registered at Police Station Haripur, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh,
along with consequential proceedings is quashed and set aside. Accused
are acquitted of the charges framed against them. The petition stands
disposed of in the aforesaid terms, along with all pending applications.
September 30, 2024 (Sandeep Sharma),
Rajeev Raturi Judge
