Himachal Pradesh High Court
Ravinder Kumar & Others vs State Of H.P. & Others on 11 September, 2024
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
2024:HHC:8337
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr.MMO Nos.429 and 433 of 2024
.
Date of Decision: 11.09.2024
_______________________________________________________
1. Cr.MMO No.429 of 2024
Ravinder Kumar & others .......Petitioners
Versus
State of H.P. & others ... Respondents
2. Cr.MMO No.433 of 2024
Ved Prakash and others .......Petitioners
Versus
State of H.P. & others ... Respondents
_______________________________________________________
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? 1
For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Pragti, Advocate, for the petitioners in
Cr.MMO No.429 of 2024 and for respondent
Nos. 2 to 4 in Cr.MMO No.433 of 2024.
For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr.
B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals, for
the respondent-State, in both the petitions.
Mr. Digvijay Singh, Advocate for the
petitioners in Cr.MMO No.433 of 2024 and for
respondent Nos. 2 to 4 in Cr.MMO No.429 of
2024.
_______________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral):
By way of above captioned petitions filed under Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, prayer has been made on
behalf of the petitioners, in both the petitions, for quashing of FIR No.
160 of 2019, dated 27.10.2019, under Sections 341, 323, 506 read
with Section 34 of IPC and FIR No.162 of 2019, dated 28.10.2019,
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2024:HHC:8337
under Sections 341, 323, 325, 307, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of
IPC, registered at Police Station Dharamshala, District Kangra,
.
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 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 No.160 of 2019, sought to be quashed in the
instant proceedings, came to be lodged at the behest of complainant
Ved Prakash (respondent No.2 in Cr.MMO No.429 of 2024 and
petitioner No.1 in Cr.MMO No.433 of 2024), alleging therein that on
27.10.2019, at 3.30 PM, his son Vishal telephonically informed him
that three persons are taking forcible possession of their land. He
alleged that when he reached the spot and apprised persons namely,
Ravinder Kumar, Nivesh Kumar and Inder Mohan that they cannot
take possession of the land on account of stay order issued by the
competent court of law, above named persons not only hurled
abuses, but also gave beatings to them, as a result thereof, he
suffered multiple injuries. Having taken note of afore statement made
by the complainant namely, Ved Prakash, FIR No. 160 of 2019, dated
27.10.2019 came to be registered the persons namely, Ravinder
Kumar, Nivesh Kumar and Inder Mohan i.e. petitioners in
2024:HHC:8337
Cr.MMO No.429 of 2024 under Sections 341, 323, 506 read with
Section 34 of IPC.
.
3. FIR No.162 of 2019, dated 28.10.2019, sought to be
quashed in the instant proceedings, came to be lodged at the behest
of the complainant namely, Nivesh Kumar(respondent No.2 in
Cr.MMO No.433 of 2024 and petitioner No. No.2 in Cr.MMO No.429
of 2024), alleging therein that on 27.10.2019, at 3.30 PM, while he
alongwith his father Ravinder Kumar, mother Smt. Punya Devi and
cousin Inder Mohan was standing on a path adjoining to his house,
persons namely, Ved Prakash and his son Vishal Kumar came on the
spot and started hurling abuses. Complainant alleged that apart from
aforesaid two accused, one person Ashwani Kumar was also with
them and they besides hurling abuses, also gave beatings to his
brother and father, as a result thereof, they suffered multiple injuries.
In the aforesaid background, FIR, as detailed hereinabove, came to
be lodged against the persons namely, Ved Prakash, Vishal Kumar
and Ashwani Kumar i.e. petitioners in Cr.MMO No.433 of 2024 under
Sections 341, 323, 325, 307, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC.
Though, after completion of the investigation in both the FIRs, police
has already presented the challans in the competent Court of law, but
before same could be taken to its logical end, parties, who had
actually filed cross FIRs against each other arrived at a amicable
settlement, whereby they agreed to settle their dispute amicably
2024:HHC:8337
interse them. After having recorded compromise deeds (Annexures
P-2 and P-3 respectively), which have been placed on record, both
.
the parties by way of separate petitions bearing No. Cr.MMO No.429
of 2024 and Cr.MMO No. 433 of 2024 have approached this Court in
the instant proceedings for quashing of FIRs as well as consequent
proceedings, if any, pending in the competent Court of law.
4. It is pertinent to take note of the fact that Sh. Vishal
Kumar (petitioner No.2 in Cr.MMO No.433 of 2024 and respondent
No.3 in Cr.MMO No.429 of 2024) has expired.
5. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court,
respondent-State has filed reply in Cr.MMO No.429 of 2024, whereas
in Cr.MMO No.433 of 2024, it has filed status report under the
signatures of SHO, police Station, Dharamshala, District Kangra,
Himachal Pradesh. Both the reply and status report, as taken note
hereinabove, are silent with regard to the compromise, if any, arrived
interse parties. ASI Sunit Kumar has also come present alongwith the
record, but he is not aware of the compromise, if any, arrived interse
parties.
6. Persons, namely Ved Prakash and Ashwani Kumar, at
whose instance FIR No.160 of 2019, came to be lodged have come
present and they are being represented by Mr. Digvijay Singh,
Advocate. They state on oath before this Court that they of their own
volition and without there being any external pressure have entered
2024:HHC:8337
into the compromise, 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.
They state that since petitioners in Cr.MMO No.429 of 2024 have
apologized for their misbehaviour and have undertaken not to repeat
such act in future, they shall have no objection in case FIR lodged at
their behest are quashed and set aside and petitioners-accused, as
detailed hereinabove, are acquitted of the charges framed against
them. 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.
7. Persons, namely Nivesh Kumar, Ravinder Kumar and
Inder Mohan, at whose instance FIR No.162 of 2019, came to be
lodged have also come present and they are being represented by
Ms. Pragti, 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, 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.
They state that since petitioners in Cr.MMO No.433 of 2024 have
apologized for their misbehaviour and have undertaken not to repeat
such act in future, they shall have no objection in case FIR lodged at
their behest are quashed and set aside and petitioners-accused, as
2024:HHC:8337
detailed hereinabove, are acquitted of the charges framed against
them. 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.
8. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General,
after having perused the aforesaid statements made by the
respondents/ complainants, in both the cases, fairly states that no
fruitful purpose would be served in case FIRs 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 complainants/respondents as such, respondent-State shall have
no objection in case the prayer made in the petitions is allowed.
9. 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.
10. At this stage, it would be relevant to take note of the
judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Narinder Singh (supra),
2024:HHC:8337
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.
11. 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
2024:HHC:8337
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.
12. 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.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
2024:HHC:8337
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.
13. 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.
14. No doubt, as per judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex
Court in Narinder Singh case (supra), compromise, if any, made in
case involving Section 307 of IPC, is not to be accepted in routine
manner, but in case Court after having examined MLC is convinced
that injuries suffered by the complainants are grievous but not
dangerous to life, can proceed to compound the offence, especially
with a view to bring harmony interse parties. In the case at hand, both
the parties belong to same village and community and now with the
intervention of respectable member of the community, they have
resolved to settle their dispute amicably interse them and in case
prayer made on their behalf for quashing of FIRs is not accepted,
pendency of the proceedings may further widen the rift interse parties,
which is otherwise not in the interest of the parties.
2024:HHC:8337
15. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion as well
as law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court (supra), FIR No. 160 of
.
2019, dated 27.10.2019, under Sections 341, 323, 506 read with
Section 34 of IPC and FIR No.162 of 2019, dated 28.10.2019, under
Sections 341, 323, 325, 307, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC,
registered at Police Station Dharamshala, District Kangra, Himachal
Pradesh as well as consequent proceedings, if any, pending
adjudication in the competent Court of law, are quashed and set
aside. Petitioners-Accused are acquitted of the charges framed
against them.
16. The petitions stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms,
alongwith all pending applications.
(Sandeep Sharma),
Judge
September 11, 2024
(shankar)
