Himachal Pradesh High Court
Date Of Decision: 05.09.2024 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others on 5 September, 2024
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
2024:HHC:7998
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr.MMO No.765 of 2024
Date of Decision: 05.09.2024
.
______________________________________________________________________
Gian Chand Bhatia
.........Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Others
.......Respondents
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?
For the Petitioner: Mr. Ashok K. Verma, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr.
B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General, with
r Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General,
for respondent No.1/State.
Mr. K.S. Thakur and Mr. Harjeet Singh,
Advocates, for the respondents No.2 to 9.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)
By way of present petition filed under Section 528 of the
BNSS, 2023, prayer has been made by the petitioner-complainant for
quashing of FIR No.150 of 2018 dated 05.06.2018, under Sections 147,
148, 149, 341 and 323 of the IPC, registered at Police Station
Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, 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
2024:HHC:7998
be lodged at the behest of petitioner-Mr. Gian Chand Bhatia
(hereinafter, 'complainant'), who alleged that on 05.06.2018 at 8:00
.
a.m., while he had gone to drop his son to Didwin Tikkar and had
reached near his field, he saw that some persons have erected iron
angles in his field. He alleged that while he was looking towards his field
and had called his family members, accused named in the FIR, reached
at the spot and started hurling abuses and giving beatings to the
complainant as well as his other family members. In the aforesaid
background, FIR, as detailed hereinabove, came to be lodged against
the accused/respondents No.2 to 9.
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. In the aforesaid background, petitioner, who is a
complainant, himself has approached this Court for quashing of FIR as
well as consequent proceedings pending before the competent Court of
law. Though, in normal circumstances, on account of compromise
arrived inter se parties, accused named in the FIR i.e. respondents No.2
to 9, ought to have approached this Court in the instant proceedings,
but as has been taken note hereinabove, complainant i.e. petitioner
2024:HHC:7998
himself has come present before this Court, thereby arraying accused
as respondents No.2 to 9. Since parties have entered into amicable
.
settlement arrived inter se them, this Court while ignoring the aforesaid
technical defect in the petition deems it fit to consider the prayer made
on behalf of the parties for quashing of FIR as well as consequential
proceedings, pending the competent Court of law.
4. Despite notice, respondent No.1/State has not filed reply,
whereas, complainant as well as accused have come present before this
Court and are being represented by Mr. K.S. Thakur and Mr. Harjeet
Singh, Advocates.
5. Petitioner/complainant-Gian Chand Bhatia, at whose
behest, FIR came to be instituted against respondents/accused has
come present. Complainant states on oath that he of his own volition
and without there being any external pressure has entered into
compromise with the respondents/accused, whereby they have decided
to settle their dispute amicably inter se them. He states that since FIR
sought to be quashed is result of misunderstanding, coupled with the
fact that respondents/accused have already apologized for their
misbehavior/misconduct and have undertaken not to repeat such act in
future, he shall have no objection in case aforesaid FIR as well as
consequential proceedings pending in the competent Court of law are
2024:HHC:7998
quashed and set aside and the respondents 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.
6. Respondents No.2 to 9/accused, have come present and
are being represented by Mr. K.S. Thakur and Mr. Harjeet Singh,
Advocates. They also state on oath that they of their own volition and
without there being any
external pressure have
compromise with the petitioner/complainant, whereby they have
decided to settle their dispute amicably inter se them. They state that
entered into
since they have already apologized for misbehavior/misconduct and
have undertaken not to repeat such act in future, this Court may accept
their prayer for quashing the FIR. They undertake that in future, they
shall not indulge in such activities, failing which, they shall render
themselves liable for penal consequences as well as contempt of Court.
While admitting contents of the compromise to be correct, they also
admit their signatures thereupon. Their joint statement made on oath is
taken on record.
7. Having heard statements made on oath by
petitioner/complainant and respondents No.2 to 9, Mr. Rajan Kahol,
learned Additional Advocate General, states that no fruitful purpose will
2024:HHC:7998
be served in case FIR as well consequent proceedings are allowed to
continue against the respondents No.2 to 9. He further states that
.
otherwise also, chances of conviction of the accused/respondents No.2
to 9 are very remote and bleak, on account of statement made by
petitioner/complainant, as such, he shall have no objection in case
prayer made on behalf of the petitioner is accepted and FIR in question
along with consequential proceedings is quashed and set aside and
respondents No.2 to 9 are acquitted.
8. 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.
9. 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.
2024:HHC:7998
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.
10. 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
2024:HHC:7998
transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family
disputes may be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire
.
disputes among themselves.
11. 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
2024:HHC:7998
when offences of a personal nature, burying them would bring about
peace and amity between the two sides.
.
12. 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.
13. In the case at hand also, offences alleged to have been
committed by respondents No.2 to 9 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.
14. Since parties have compromised the matter with each other
and petitioner, 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 respondents No.2 to 9, this
Court sees no impediment in accepting the prayer made on behalf of the
2024:HHC:7998
petitioner for quashing of the FIR along with all consequential
proceedings.
.
15. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion as well as
law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court (supra), FIR No.150 of 2018
dated 05.06.2018, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341 and 323 of the
IPC, registered at Police Station Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, 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 05, 2024 (Sandeep Sharma),
(Rajeev Raturi) Judge
