Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 535 (HP)

Kishore Kumar @ Kishore v. State of H. P.

2013-06-13

SURINDER SINGH

body2013
JUDGMENT Surinder Singh, J (oral): The petitioner seeks the quashment of the proceedings lodged in pursuance to FIR in case No.143/2 of 2012, by filing the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. In fact, on 26.6.2012, respondent No.2 Amrik Singh was working with his father at a liquor vend at Manjholi, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. Around 9 p.m., the petitioner herein came to Ahta, consumed liquor and while taking liquor also consumed the chicken and eggs. When Amrik Singh demanded money, the petitioner started beating him up and poured the boiled oil with pan on him, which caused injuries on his body. 3.On the complaint filed by respondent No.2, a case was registered and the complainant was got medically examined. Since it was a case of grievous injuries, as such, it involved an offence under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. After completing the investigation, challan was filed under the aforesaid section, which is pending adjudication before Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. 5. It is contended that the matter has been amicably settled inter-se the parties, thus in order to have cordial relations, the complainant did not want to pursue this matter. It is also stated that an application for withdrawal is also pending with the Government, but no final decision has yet been taken in the matter. 6. In fact, the offence aforesaid is non- compoundable. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are not to be governed by Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, therefore in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another [ (2012) 10 SCC 303 ] it is within the powers of the Court to prevent the abuse of process and order the quashment of the proceeding. 7.I have perused the judgment of the Apex Court referred above. It has considered the scope of the powers of High Court on the point and concluded in para-61 as under:- “61. 7.I have perused the judgment of the Apex Court referred above. It has considered the scope of the powers of High Court on the point and concluded in para-61 as under:- “61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim’s family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.” 8.The facts in this case are clearly distinguishable as the matter in hand has no civil flavour, which stands on quite different footing, because the offence for which the petitioner is charged is against the Society having a serious impact, thus, allowing to quash the proceedings emanating from the aforesaid FIR under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, which provides for life imprisonment would be unfair and not serving justice. Therefore, there is no justification or cogent ground to quash the criminal proceedings sought for, as such, the petition is dismissed.