Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1954 (HP)

Ashish Bhuppal @ Gigi v. State of H. P.

2016-09-09

P.S.RANA

body2016
ORDER : P.S. Rana, J. Present petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash FIR No. 122 of 2014 dated 18.8.2014 registered under Sections 379, 411 read with Section 34 IPC at P.S. Bhoranj and also to quash criminal proceedings pending before learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Court No. 2 Hamirpur H.P. in case No. 136/1 of 2014 title State vs. Parveen Kumar and others. Brief facts of the case 2. It is alleged that in the month of August 2014 during night period maruti car No. HP-23-0247 owned by Dharam Chand son of Sukhia Ram was stolen by co-accused Parveen Kumar @ Rinku and Vijay Kumar @ Kakku and same was sold to coaccused Ashish Bhuppal @ Gigi petitioner. It is alleged that statement of Ashish Bhuppal co-accused was recorded under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act 1872 and co-accused Ashish Bhuppal @ Gigi has given disclosure statement under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act 1872 that maruti car No. HP-23-0247 was purchased by co-accused Ashish Bhuppal on 18.8.2014 from coaccused Parveen Kumar @ Rinku and co-accused Vijay Kumar @ Kakku. It is alleged that co-accused Ashish Bhuppal also disclosed that maruti car No. HP-23-0247 was left by him for repair in workshop of Daya Ram situated at Manikaran road near Bhuntar. Maruti car No. HP-23-0247 was recovered as per disclosure statement given by accused persons. After investigation charge sheet filed against accused persons before competent Court of law under Sections 379 and 411 IPC read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and criminal case No. 136/1 of 2014 title State of H.P. vs. Parveen Kumar is pending before learned Judicial Magistrate Court No. 2 Hamirpur H.P. for consideration upon charge. 3. Response filed on behalf of State of H.P. Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner and learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of State and also perused the record carefully. 4. Following points arise for determination in present petition:- Point No.1 Whether petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of petition? Point No.2 Final order. Findings upon Point No. 1 with reasons 5. 4. Following points arise for determination in present petition:- Point No.1 Whether petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of petition? Point No.2 Final order. Findings upon Point No. 1 with reasons 5. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner that co-accused Parveen Kumar @ Rinku and coaccused Vijay Kumar @ Kakku have falsely implicated coaccused Ashish Bhuppal in present case and on this ground petition be allowed is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Whether co-accused Parveen Kumar @ Rinku and co-accused Vijay Kumar @ Kakku have falsely implicated co-accused Ashish Bhuppal in present case or not is complicated issue of facts. Judicial findings relating to complicated issue of facts at this stage of case cannot be given by Court unless opportunity is granted to both the parties to lead evidence in support of their case. 6. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner that petitioner did not receive any amount of sale of stolen car and petitioner did not hand over the stolen car to Daya Ram Auto Works for repair as alleged by prosecution and on this ground petition be allowed is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Facts whether petitioner received consideration amount of stolen car or not and facts whether petitioner did not hand over the stolen car for repair in Daya Ram Auto Works is also complicated issue of facts. Judicial findings relating to complicated issue of facts cannot be given at this stage of case unless opportunity is granted to both parties to lead evidence in support of their case. 7. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner that petitioner only accompanied co-accused Parveen Kumar @ Rinku and co-accused Vijay Kumar @ Kakku when vehicle was given for repair at their instance and on this ground petition be allowed is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Judicial findings whether petitioner only accompanied co-accused Parveen Kumar @ Rinku and co-accused Vijay Kumar @ Kakku when vehicle was given for repair at their instance is a complicated issue of facts. Judicial findings whether petitioner only accompanied co-accused Parveen Kumar @ Rinku and co-accused Vijay Kumar @ Kakku when vehicle was given for repair at their instance is a complicated issue of facts. Judicial findings relating to complicated issue of facts cannot be given at this stage of case unless opportunity is granted to both parties to lead evidence in support of their case. 8. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner that investigating agency failed to recover the sale consideration amount of Rs.11000/- (Rupees eleven thousand) from co-accused Ashish Bhuppal and on this ground petition be allowed is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Investigating Agency has recorded disclosure statement of co-accused Ashish Bhuppal placed on record that he has received stolen car and investigating agency also recorded disclosure statement of co-accused Parveen Kumar @ Rinku and co-accused Vijay Kumar @ Kakku that they have sold the stolen car to co-accused Ashish Bhuppal. Judicial findings relating to evidentiary value of disclosure statement given by co-accused Parveen Kumar @ Rinku and co-accused Vijay Kumar @ Kakku and co-accused Ashish Bhuppal @ Gigi cannot be given at this stage of case and judicial findings relating to disclosure statement will be given by Court after giving opportunity to both parties to lead evidence in support of their case. 9. It is well settled law that power to quash FIR and criminal proceedings should be exercised sparingly by High Court with circumspection. It is well settled law that normal process of criminal trial should not be cut short in casual manner. It is also well settled law that when charge sheet is filed against accused persons then FIR could not be quashed because after filing of charge sheet FIR culminated into charge sheet. See (1995)2 SCC 449 State of T.N. vs. Thirukkural Perumal. See (1992) Supp 1 SCC 335 title State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal. See JT (2015)3 SC 185 title Taramani Parakh vs. State of M.P. See (2012)10 SCC 155 title State of M.P. vs. Surendra Kori. See AIR 2014 SC 3352 title Mosiruddin Munshi vs. Md. Siraj and another. See (2009)1 SCC 516 title R. Kalyani vs. Janak C. Mehta. See (2009)4 SCC 439 title Mahesh Chaudhary vs. State of Rajasthan. AIR 2014 SC 187 title Lalita Kumari vs. Govt. See AIR 2014 SC 3352 title Mosiruddin Munshi vs. Md. Siraj and another. See (2009)1 SCC 516 title R. Kalyani vs. Janak C. Mehta. See (2009)4 SCC 439 title Mahesh Chaudhary vs. State of Rajasthan. AIR 2014 SC 187 title Lalita Kumari vs. Govt. of U.P. AIR 2014 SC 2567 title Rishi Pal Singh vs. State of U.P. See (2012)10 SCC 303 title Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab. See (2004)1 SCC 691 title State of M.P. vs. Awadh Kishore Gupta. There are positive and direct allegations against co-accused Ashish Bhuppal @ Gigi in present case relating to criminal offence punishable under Section 411 IPC relating to receiving of stolen property by way of disclosure statement of co-accused Parveen Kumar @ Rinku and co-accused Vijay Kumar @ Kakku and co-accused Ashish Bhuppal @ Gigi recorded under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act 1872 placed on record. 10. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner that out of Court settlement executed between complainant and co-accused Ashish Bhuppal placed on record and on this ground present petition be allowed is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Court has carefully perused the compromise deed dated 14.3.2016 executed between Dharam Chand complainant and co-accused Ashish Bhuppal. In present case valuation of stolen property is Rs.11000/-(Rupees eleven thousand). As per Section 320 of Code of Criminal Procedure compounding of criminal offence with permission of Court could be granted only when value of stolen property is not exceeding Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand). Theft of movable properties is increasing day by day during night period in the society. In order to curb theft of movable properties during night period it is not expedient in the ends of justice to allow the petition on the basis of out of Court settlement placed on record. It is well settled law that order of compounding criminal offence which are non-compoundable under statutory provision of Code of Criminal Procedure is improper. It is also well settled law that it is against public policy to compound a non-compoundable criminal offence. See AIR 2008 SCW 7865 title Ishwar Singh vs. State of M.P. See 1993 Cr.L.J. 3193 title Mohan Singh vs. State (FB) Rajasthan. 11. Judicial findings relating to absence of mensrea or actus reus cannot be given at this stage of case. It is also well settled law that it is against public policy to compound a non-compoundable criminal offence. See AIR 2008 SCW 7865 title Ishwar Singh vs. State of M.P. See 1993 Cr.L.J. 3193 title Mohan Singh vs. State (FB) Rajasthan. 11. Judicial findings relating to absence of mensrea or actus reus cannot be given at this stage of case. Judicial findings relating to absence of mensrea or actus reus would be given by learned Trial Court during trial of case after giving due opportunity to both parties to prove their case. Point No. 1 is answered in negative. Point No.2 (Final Order) 12. In view of findings upon point No.1 petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C, is dismissed. Parties are directed to appear before learned Trial Court on 30.9.2016. Observations will not effect merits of case in any manner and will be strictly confine to disposal of present petition. File of learned Trial Court along with certify copy of order be sent back forthwith. Cr.MMO No. 354 of 2015 is disposed of. Pending miscellaneous applications if any also stands disposed of.