Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 731 (HP)

Devina v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2012-10-16

KULDIP SINGH

body2012
Judgment Kuldip Singh, J. 1. The petitioners have filed the petition for quashing FIR No. 32 dated 23.5.2012, registered at Police Station, Chirgaon for offence, punishable under section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, Act), sections 506, 34 IPC. 2. The facts stated in the petition are that on 20.5.2012 learned Civil Judge-cum- Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Court No. 2 had visited village Tanganu in connection with legal literacy camp. The villagers had arranged food for refreshment etc. The allegation is that when persons belonging to `Harijan’ caste had started to take food, the petitioners defamed the complainant party by abusing them and also called them from their caste and thereby defamed respondents No. 2, 3 in full public view. It has been alleged that petitioners called the complainant party that since they belong to `Koli’ caste, there was no food arrangement for them. The complainant party was also manhandled by the petitioners. On these allegations, FIR No. 32 dated 23.5.2012 has been registered at Police Station, Chirgaon for offence, punishable under section 3(1)(x) of the Act. 3. The petitioners were granted bail by the High Court on 12.6.2012. On the intervention of co-villagers and respectable persons of the area, the petitioners and respondents No. 2 and 3 have settled the matter. The respondents No. 2 and 3 had also filed an application before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Rohru on 29.5.2012 stating that petitioners and respondents No. 2 and 3 in order to maintain cordial relations with each other have settled the matter amicably without any pressure and coercion. The settlement has been made between the parties with free consent. The respondents No. 2 and 3 had stated that they do not want to proceed with the case got registered by them before the police or with the court. The respondents No. 2 and 3 have also sworn the affidavits to this effect on 29.5.2012. It has been stated by respondents No. 2 and 3 that they have inadvertently lodged the FIR against the petitioners, who have committed no offence, as claimed. 4. The petitioners and respondents No. 2 and 3 are co-villagers. On 20.5.2012 after completion of public literacy camp, some altercations took place between the petitioners and complainant party. It has been stated by respondents No. 2 and 3 that they have inadvertently lodged the FIR against the petitioners, who have committed no offence, as claimed. 4. The petitioners and respondents No. 2 and 3 are co-villagers. On 20.5.2012 after completion of public literacy camp, some altercations took place between the petitioners and complainant party. The petitioners had not indulged in manhandling and addressing the respondents No. 2 and 3 by their caste in public view. There was misunderstanding between the parties, which has been settled, but police authorities have refused to withdraw the case. The complaint was lodged in hot haste. 5. The petitioners and respondents No. 2 and 3 want to have cordial relations between them in near future. It has been stated that no purpose will be served by proceeding further in the case. The continuation of proceedings will dampen the cordial relations between the petitioners and respondents No. 2 and 3. The compounding of the case is in the interest of both the sides. It has been stated that on merits also, no case is made out against the petitioners. The submission has been made for allowing the petition. 6. The respondent No. 1 has filed the reply and has taken preliminary objection of maintainability, section 3(1)(x) of the Act is not compoundable. On completion of investigation, prima facie, case was found against the petitioners and final report, under section 173 Cr.P.C. has already been filed in the court. On merits, it has been stated that no application was ever presented before Dy. Superintendent of Police, Rohru. It has not come in the investigation that respondents No. 2 and 3 have compromised the dispute. The execution of affidavits by Shyam Lal, Rattan Chand and joint affidavit of Shyam Lal and Rattan Chand have not been denied. It has been stated that petitioners are influential persons, they have prevailed upon the complainant and witnesses to withdraw the complaint. The complainant was manhandled by the petitioners and was not allowed to eat the food in public. The submission has been made for dismissal of the petition. 7. The respondents No. 2 and 3 have filed separate reply. It has been stated that matter has been compromised among the parties with the intervention of co-villagers and respectable persons of the area. The submission has been made for dismissal of the petition. 7. The respondents No. 2 and 3 have filed separate reply. It has been stated that matter has been compromised among the parties with the intervention of co-villagers and respectable persons of the area. An application was also filed before the Deputy Superintendent of Police ,Rohru on 29.5.2012 for withdrawal of the case. It has been stated that respondents No. 2, 3 do not want to pursue the matter any more. It has been stated that offence may be ordered to be compounded and petitioners may be discharged. The respondents No. 2, 3 have ultimately prayed for quashing of the proceedings. 8. The petitioners filed rejoinder to the reply of respondent No. 1 and reiterated their case projected in the petition. It has been stated that FIR No. 32 dated 23.5.2012 for offence punishable under section 3 (1) (x) of the Act and sections 506, 34 IPC registered at Police Station, Chirgaon and all other proceedings after the filing of the FIR may be quashed and set-aside and case may be closed. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The respective stand taken by the parties has been reiterated. The respondent No. 2 Shyam Lal has lodged FIR No. 32 dated 23.5.2012 at Police Station, Chirgaon under section 3(1)(x) of the Act. On completion of investigation, challan has been filed against the petitioners under sections 3 (1) (x) of the Act, sections 506, 34 IPC. The petitioners have placed on record the affidavits dated 29.5.2012 of Shyam Lal and Rattan Chand and joint affidavit of Shyam Lal and Rattan Chand. The execution of these affidavits has not been denied by respondent No.1. On behalf of respondent No. 1 contention has been raised that offence under section 3 (1) (x) of the Act is not compoundable. On conclusion of investigation, prima facie case has been found against the petitioners, challan has been submitted in the court. It has been submitted by the learned Addl. Advocate General that even cognizance has been taken by the court. The submission has been made that in these circumstances, the petition is not maintainable. 10. It is the case of the petitioners that matter has been settled amicably between the petitioners and respondents No. 2 and 3 who are co-villagers. It has been submitted by the learned Addl. Advocate General that even cognizance has been taken by the court. The submission has been made that in these circumstances, the petition is not maintainable. 10. It is the case of the petitioners that matter has been settled amicably between the petitioners and respondents No. 2 and 3 who are co-villagers. In order to maintain harmony in the village and keeping in view future relations of petitioners and respondents No. 2 and 3, it is in the interest of justice that petition may be allowed. The respondents No. 2 and 3 themselves are making sincere efforts for withdrawing the FIR but they are facing technical hurdles that case of the present nature cannot be withdrawn at the level of police. It has been submitted that section 482 Cr.P.C. takes care of such type of situation for quashing the proceedings. It will not be in the interest of any party to continue with the proceedings which will dampen the spirit of settlement of the case by the parties themselves. The continuation of proceedings will be wastage of time of the court when the petitioners and respondents No. 2 and 3 have settled the dispute and they are praying for quashing the proceedings. 11. In B.S.Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana and another AIR 2003 SC 1386 , it has been held that powers of High Court, under section 482 Cr.P.C. are not in any manner controlled by Section 320 of the Code. This has again been reiterated by the Supreme Court in Shiji alias Pappu and others vs. Radhika and others 2011 (10) SCC 705 . In Cr. Case No. 178/1 of 1999, under sections 498-A, 323, 506, 109 IPC, the case pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class (II), Una, was quashed by the learned Single Judge. In Rajinder Singh and others vs. State of H.P. and another 2004 (2) Sim. L.C. 5, after compromise between the parties, the proceeding under sections 498-A, 34, 506 and 323 IPC pending the court was quashed. 12. The petitioners have placed on record copy of application dated 29.5.2012 addressed to Divisional (sic) Superintendent of Police, Rohru. The applicants are Shyam Lal, Rattan Chand. It has been stated in the application that on 20.5.2012, the parties had come in conflict with each other. 12. The petitioners have placed on record copy of application dated 29.5.2012 addressed to Divisional (sic) Superintendent of Police, Rohru. The applicants are Shyam Lal, Rattan Chand. It has been stated in the application that on 20.5.2012, the parties had come in conflict with each other. The parties to the FIR are co-villagers and have cordial relations with each other and have settled the matter amicably with each other without any pressure from any side. The settlement has been made between the parties. The applicants now do not want to proceed against the petitioners in the police or any court of law. In the affidavit dated 29.5.2012 Shyam Lal respondent No.2 with reference to FIR No. 32 dated 23.5.2012 has stated that FIR has been registered against the petitioners due to misunderstanding between the parties, who have cordial relations with each other and do not want to proceed with the case further. He wants to withdraw the case. 13. The respondent No. 3 Rattan Chand has sworn similar affidavit on 29.5.2012. There is another joint affidavit of respondents No.2, 3 dated 29.5.2012 stating therein that FIR was got registered inadvertently against the petitioners, whereas petitioners have not committed such offence. The petitioners had not uttered any word in regard to un-touchability. They want to withdraw the case against the petitioners. The respondents in their joint reply have reiterated the same stand that they have compromised the matter with petitioners amicably outside the court. They belong to same village. In the interest of their future relations, they do not want to continue with the case. It is thus clear that respondents No. 2 and 3 have now settled the matter and they do not want to continue with the case and they want to withdraw the case. The respondent No.1 has, however, taken the stand that case is not compoundable, therefore, the request of respondents No. 2 and 3 for compounding or withdrawing the case is immaterial. 14. The petitioners and respondents No. 2 and 3 are co-villagers. The FIR was lodged by respondent No. 2. It appears the petitioners and respondents No. 2 and 3 have settled the dispute outside the Court. The settlement between the petitioners and respondents No. 2 and 3 appears to be voluntary, bonafide without any coercion or pressure. 14. The petitioners and respondents No. 2 and 3 are co-villagers. The FIR was lodged by respondent No. 2. It appears the petitioners and respondents No. 2 and 3 have settled the dispute outside the Court. The settlement between the petitioners and respondents No. 2 and 3 appears to be voluntary, bonafide without any coercion or pressure. The respondents No. 2 and 3 have taken consistent stand that they have settled the dispute with the petitioners. The respondents No. 2 and 3 have filed application dated 29.5.2012 before Dy. S.P. Rohru stating that the matter has been settled. The respondents No. 2 and 3 have sworn affidavits dated 29.5.2012 showing that they have settled the dispute and they want to withdraw the case. 15. The respondents No. 2 and 3 in the reply in the Court also have stated that they have settled the dispute with the petitioners and they want to withdraw the case. It appears from the heart the petitioners and respondents No. 2 and 3 have settled the dispute. In view of the stand now taken by respondents No. 2 and 3 it will be exercise in futility to continue with the criminal case which has arisen out of the FIR No. 32 dated 23.5.2012 registered at Police Station, Chirgaon. The possibility is that the respondents No. 2 and 3 and other private witnesses very likely will not support the prosecution case. The power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not controlled by Section 320 Cr.P.C. In a given case the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can quash the FIR and the proceedings even if the case is not covered by Section 320 of the Code. 16. In view of above, the petition is allowed, FIR No. 32 dated 23.5.2012, registered at Police Station, Chirgaon for offence, punishable under section 3(1)(x) of the Act, sections 506, 34 IPC and criminal case arisen out of above FIR are quashed. The petition is disposed of on above terms. The pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of.