Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 927 (HP)

Subhash Singla v. State of H. P.

2015-07-22

P.S.RANA

body2015
Order : P.S. Rana, J. Order Present petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Article 227 of Constitution of India for quashing FIR No. 182 dated 4.9.2013 and for quashing consequential criminal proceedings pending before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Solan H.P. in criminal case titled State of H.P. vs. Subhash Singh Singla and others registered under Sections 368, 384, 342, 506 and 34 IPC. Brief facts of case 2. Ashok Kumar complainant filed criminal complaint before Incharge P.P. Solan. There is recital in complaint that on dated 3.9.2013 at 10 PM the complainant was standing nearby his vehicle. There is recital in complaint that one car came from vegetable market and stopped nearby the vehicle of complainant. There is recital in complaint that Anita and her son Vishal and 3-4 boys were sitting in the vehicle. There is recital in complaint that thereafter Smt. Anita boarded down from vehicle and threatened the complainant and inquired from complainant as to when complainant would pay her money and money of Balaji. There is further recital in complaint that thereafter Anita told the complainant to sit in her vehicle. There is further recital in complaint that thereafter complainant sat in the vehicle and vehicle was brought to Kandaghat. There is recital in complaint that thereafter complainant was brought in the hotel and he was threatened to withdraw criminal case. There is further recital in complaint that accused are residents of Punjab and they would lift the complainant from hardened criminals. There is also recital in complaint that complainant had filed the criminal complaint against Balaji Finance Company. There is further recital in complaint that thereafter accused at 11.30 night dropped the complainant at Chambaghat and thereafter FIR No. 182 dated 14.9.2013 was registered and investigation was conducted. After investigation, criminal challan was filed against accused persons under Sections 368, 384, 342, 506 and 34 IPC before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solan on dated 15.1.2014. 3. Court heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of non-petitioner No.1 and also heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of non-petitioner No.2 and also perused the entire record carefully. 4. Following points arise for determination in present case:- 1. 3. Court heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of non-petitioner No.1 and also heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of non-petitioner No.2 and also perused the entire record carefully. 4. Following points arise for determination in present case:- 1. Whether FIR No. 182 of 2013 dated 4.9.2013 and consequential criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed after filing report of police officer under Section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 on completion of investigation in the competent Court of law in view of ruling of H.P. High Court reported in 2015(2) Him.L.R. 1095 titled Nancy Bhatt and another vs. State of H.P. and another? 2. Final Order. Reasons for findings on Point No.1. 5. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioners that FIR No. 182 of 2013 dated 4.9.2013 registered under Sections 368, 384, 342 and 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code registered in P.S. Sadar Solan be quashed in view of affidavit given by complainant and in view of compromise deed executed between the complainant and accused placed on record is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Hon’ble High Court of H.P. in case reported in 2015(2) Him.L.R. 1095 titled Nancy Bhatt and another vs. State of H.P. and another held that after filing of charge sheet in the competent Court of law FIR could not be quashed by the High Court while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Petitioners did not place on record any evidence in order to prove that ruling given by Hon’ble High Court of H.P. cited supra was set aside by any competent Court of law. It is well settled law that single bench of same High Court cannot over rule prior ruling given by another single bench of same High Court and it is also well settled law that former ruling of single bench of same High Court is binding upon another single bench of same High Court in subsequent proceedings of same nature. It is well settled law that single bench of same High Court cannot over rule prior ruling given by another single bench of same High Court and it is also well settled law that former ruling of single bench of same High Court is binding upon another single bench of same High Court in subsequent proceedings of same nature. (Also see AIR 2015 SC 1976 titled P.Susheela vs. University Grant Commission) It is well settled law that FIR is the sheet anchor on the basis of which investigation ensued and once FIR on the basis of which investigation was initiated is culminated into the charge sheet then FIR does not remain the sheet anchor because same alone could not be read and FIR has to be read along with material covered by investigating agency during the course of investigation. It is well settled law that Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. could not undertake pretrial of criminal case. (See 1994 SCC (Cri.) 500 titled State of Punjab vs. Dharam Vir Singh Jethi. See (1996)2 SCC 199 titled Vineet Narain and others vs. Union of India. See (1996)6 SCC 354 titled Chandra Pradhan vs. Union of India and others. Also see (2011)12 SCC 302 titled Jakia Nasim Ahesan and another vs. State of Gujarat and others.) It was held in case reported in JT 2014(4) SC 573 titled Narinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab that mere settlement between parties would not be ground to quash proceedings under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Even criminal offences under Section 368 IPC and under Section 384 IPC are non-compoundable criminal offences as per Section 320 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. 6. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners that criminal proceedings pending before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Solan be quashed is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is proved on record that learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Solan on dated 18.2.2014 held that after going through police challan and documents filed therewith there are sufficient materials on record to proceed against accused persons for commission of offence punishable under Sections 368, 384, 342 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC. Court is of the opinion that petitioners have alternative efficacious remedy to plead for discharge of accused under section 239 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. Court is of the opinion that petitioners have alternative efficacious remedy to plead for discharge of accused under section 239 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. It is also well settled law that when alternative efficacious remedy is available then power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should not be exercised. Power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is extra ordinary power and it has to be exercised sparingly carefully and with caution. (See (2008)8 SCC 781 titled Monica Kumar vs. U.P. See 2000 Criminal Law Journal 315 titled Kavita vs. State (Delhi). See 1997(2) Crimes 331 titled Basudev Bhai vs. Bipada Bhajan Puhan.) In view of above stated facts point No. 1 is answered in negative. Point No. 2 (Final Order) 7. In view of above stated facts petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed. However petitioners will be at liberty to raise the plea of discharge before learned trial Court under Section 239 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 in accordance with law. Observations made in this order will not effect merits of case in any manner and will be strictly confine for the disposal of petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. File of learned trial Court along with certified copy of order be sent back forthwith. Parties are directed to appear before learned trial Court on date 20.8.2015. Learned Registrar (Judicial) will ensure transmission of file of learned trial Court on date 20.8.2015. Petition is disposed of. All pending miscellaneous application(s) if any also stands disposed of.