Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1039 (HP)

Parveen Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2014-08-04

RAJIV SHARMA

body2014
JUDGMENT Rajiv Sharma, J. 1. This petition has been preferred under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of FIR No. 36 of 2007 dated 19.2.2007 under sections 147, 148, 149, 323 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code, Private Complaint Case No. 4-1 of 2007, titled as Ajay Kumar vs. Parveen Kumar and others and Criminal Case No. 76-II/2008, titled as State of H.P. vs. Parveen Kumar and others pending before the Judicial Magistrate/ACJM, Indora, District Kangra. 2. Key facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that some incident has taken place to which it was not certain whether it fell in the territory of Police Station, Pathankot, Punjab or under the Police Station, Indora, Himachal Pradesh. Brother of injured person lodged report at Police Station, Pathankot against the petitioners. Petitioners also lodged cross-FIR at Police Station, Pathankot. Pathankot Police investigated both the FIRs and filed two cross-cases, one against the petitioners and other against respondent No. 2, i.e. Ajay Kumar. Respondent No. 2 moved an application under section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure pertaining to the same incident. This application was allowed by the Judicial Magistrate, Indora. The police investigated the case and filed challan in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Indora. Thereafter, respondent No. 2 filed a private complaint in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Indora. 3. Petitioners filed two Cr. MMO Nos. 126 of 2008 and 4 of 2009 for quashing of case arising out of FIR No. 36 of 2007, lodged at Police Station, Indora and in the alternative for staying the trial of the case till the cases filed at Pathankot were not decided and the second prayer was made for quashing the order dated 3.11.2008 whereby two cases were ordered to be separated. Cr. MMO Nos. 126 of 2008 and 4 of 2009 were decided by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 10.8.2009. 4. Respondent No.2 and other accused of FIR No. 18 dated 8.2.2007 registered under sections 323, 324, 325, 326, 342, 347, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station, Sadar, Pathankot filed petition bearing Crl. Misc. No. M-10742 of 2012 under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of FIR No. 18 before the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court. Misc. No. M-10742 of 2012 under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of FIR No. 18 before the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court. The Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court quashed FIR No. 18 dated 8.2.2007 registered at Police Station, Sadar Pathankot, District Gurdaspur and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise were also quashed qua the petitioners vide order dated 15.1.2013. Petitioners also filed petition bearing No. Crl. Misc. No. M-33079 of 2012 under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court for quashing of cross version of DDR No. 24 dated 10.2.2007 registered under sections 324, 323, 342, 148, 149 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code in case FIR No. 18 dated 8.2.2007. This petition was also allowed by the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court by the same order dated 15.1.2013. However, fact of the matter is that despite quashing of FIR No. 18 dated 8.2.2007 and cross-version of DDR No.24 dated 10.2.2007, the proceedings before the Judicial Magistrate, Indora, District Kangra, are still pending. 5. Respondent No.2 has also filed an affidavit before the Executive Magistrate, Indora on 22.10.2013 giving therein the details the manner in which FIR and the cross-FIR were quashed by the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court. He did not want to pursue any other case further after the judgment rendered by the Punjab and Haryana High Court. 6. It is evident from the pleadings that the parties have already compromised the matter and have decided to bury the hatchet. Respondent No.2 himself had approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court for quashing of FIR No. 18 dated 8.2.2007 and the petitioners have also filed cross-version in DDR No. 24 dated 10.2.2007. The Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court has passed a detailed judgment quashing the FIR No.18 dated 8.2.2007 and cross-version in DDR No.24 dated 10.2.2007. 7. The Court is of the considered view that the continuation of proceedings in these circumstances before the Judicial Magistrate, Indora would be exercise in futility. 8. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Narinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another, (2014) 6 SCC 466 have succinctly explained the principles under what circumstances proceedings can be quashed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure when the matters are compromised. 8. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Narinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another, (2014) 6 SCC 466 have succinctly explained the principles under what circumstances proceedings can be quashed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure when the matters are compromised. Their Lordships have held as under:- 29.1. 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 the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution. 29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:- (i) Ends of justice. (ii) To prevent abuse of the process of any Court. While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives. 29.3. Such a power is not be exercised in those prosecutions 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. Similarly, for offences alleged to have been 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. 29.4. On the other, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves. 29.5. While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases.” 9. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. 29.5. While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases.” 9. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Proceedings pending before the A.C.J.M. Indora in FIR No. 36 of 2007 dated 19.2.2007 under sections 147, 148, 149, 323 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code, Criminal Case No. 76-II/2008, titled as State of H.P. vs. Parveen Kumar and others and Private Complaint Case No. 4-1 of 2007, titled as Ajay Kumar vs. Parveen Kumar and others, are quashed in order to secure the ends of justice. Pending applications, if any, also stands disposed of.