Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1985 (HP)

Tarun Sharotri v. State Of H. P.

2015-12-29

SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2015
JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. This petition has been filed at the instance of the petitioner-accused, for the quashing of F.I.R No. 49 of 2014 of 05.04.2014 wherein the petitioner herein is alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC registered at Police Station Shahpur, District Kangra, H.P. and also for quashing of consequent proceedings initiated in pursuance thereto and pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dharamshala, H.P. in Criminal Case No. 90-II/2014 titled as State of H.P. v. Tarun Sharotri. 2. During the pendency of this case before this Court both the victim and the complainant have recorded their statements on oath duly reduced into writing and respectively thumb marked and signatured by them wherein they have divulged qua the arriving of a settlement/compromise, comprised in Annexure A-3, interse the victim and the petitioner herein, who are neighbourers. The compromise interse them stands driven by the prime factum of aborting further estrangement in their relations besides for promoting goodwill and healthy neighbourly relations interse them. Moreover, the victim has accepted in her statement the factum of the accused/petitioner having paid to her a sum of Rs.45,000/- towards expenses incurred by her for treating the injuries suffered by her in consequence to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by the accused/petitioner. The desire and aspiration of the victim and the petitioner to promote goodwill interse them ought not to be frustrated especially when they are neighbourers and want to promote good neighbourly relations besides intend to accelerate harmony. 3. Further more, even though the offence under Section 279 of the IPC constituted in the FIR may not be compoundable, hence, obviously its being settled through a deed of compromise may also not be permissible. 3. Further more, even though the offence under Section 279 of the IPC constituted in the FIR may not be compoundable, hence, obviously its being settled through a deed of compromise may also not be permissible. However, in the face of a verdict of the Honble Apex Court in a judgment reported in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & another, (2012) 10 SCC 303 , the relevant paragraph whereof is extracted hereinafter mandating that where the victim of the offence and the accused come to record a settlement/strike a compromise even qua offences which are not compoundable, hence would rather not pave way for the success of the complaint/prosecution rather the prosecution of the offender for his having committed the alleged non-compoundable offences, would be an exercise in futility, is a preponderant and preeminent factor to be borne in mind by this Court while exercising the plenary jurisdiction vested in it under Section 482 Cr.P.C. "58. Where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that the dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled although the offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. No doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful effect on the public and consist in wrongdoing that seriously endangers and threats the well being of the society and it is not safe to leave the crime-doer only because he and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the victim has been paid compensation, yet certain crimes have been made compoundable in law, with or without the permission of the Court. In respect of serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., or other offences of mental depravity under IPC or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by the public servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between the offender and the victim can have no legal sanction at all. In respect of serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., or other offences of mental depravity under IPC or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by the public servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between the offender and the victim can have no legal sanction at all. However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to the victim and the offender and the victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or FIR if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated. The above list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Each case will depend on its own facts and no hard-and-fast category can be prescribed." 4. As such, when it is mandated therein that to secure/restore peace and put the dispute inter se the victim of the offence and the accused to rest, the courts of law can proceed to accept the settlement even when some of the offences constituted in the FIR are non-compoundable. Revering the verdict of the Honble Apex Court, this Court accepts the joint proposal of the petitioner/accused and victim to settle/compromise the dispute comprised in the FIR even when some of the offences constituted therein are not compoundable. Consequently, while accepting the compromise comprised in Ext.A-3, the petition is allowed. 5. Accordingly, FIR No. 49 of 2014 registered at Police Station Shahpur, District Kangra on 05.04.2014 under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC and the consequential proceedings pending against the accused/petitioner in the Court of competent jurisdiction are quashed and set-aside. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. 6. Dasti copy.