Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 261 (HP)

Sahil v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2016-03-16

P.S.RANA

body2016
ORDER : 1. Present petition filed under Section 482 Cr. P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 0162 dated 18.10.2015 registered under Section 324 IPC in Police Station Joginder Nagar District Mandi (H.P.) against petitioner and for quashing proceedings of Criminal Case No. 111- II/15 titled State vs. Sahil. Thereafter petitioner filed Cr. MP No. 1517 of 2015 in Cr. MMO No. 325 of 2015 under Section 482 Cr. PC for giving permission to compound the criminal offence registered under Section 324 IPC. Brief facts of the case: 2. Complainant Akshay filed FIR. There is recital in FIR that complainant is a student of MBA at Shimla (H.P.). On dated 17.10.2015 there was marriage of real brother of complainant and many persons came to attend the marriage. During mid night of 18.10.2015 at 3.15 A.M. DJ was stopped. It is alleged that Manish Rana came weeping and told that accused Sahil had slapped him. It is further alleged that thereafter complainant approached accused Sahil and inquired from him about the incident. It is further alleged that thereafter Sahil became angry and took out a grip from the pocket of his pant and thereafter inflicted injuries upon the head of the complainant with grip. It is alleged that Bhim Sen, Manish and Surender rescued the complainant. Medical examination of the accused was conducted and after medical examination case under Section 324 IPC was registered and matter was investigated. Site plan prepared and photographs obtained. T-shirt of complainant clotted with blood also took into possession vide seizure memo and statements of prosecution witnesses under Section 161 Cr. P.C. recorded and after completion of investigation Challan filed under Section 324 IPC before Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Joginder Nagar District Mandi. Learned Judicial Magistrate observed that there exists sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused for offence punishable under Section 324 IPC and summoned the accused for 19.1.2016. Feeling aggrieved against the order of learned trial Court dated 11.12.2015 petitioner filed petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. and also filed petition for compounding the criminal offence. 3. Per-contra police report filed. As per police report petitioner has committed criminal offence punishable under Section 324 IPC. It is pleaded that Section 324 IPC is non-compoundable criminal offence. Feeling aggrieved against the order of learned trial Court dated 11.12.2015 petitioner filed petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. and also filed petition for compounding the criminal offence. 3. Per-contra police report filed. As per police report petitioner has committed criminal offence punishable under Section 324 IPC. It is pleaded that Section 324 IPC is non-compoundable criminal offence. It is further pleaded that offence is against the society and is not in the public interest to drop the proceedings on the basis of out of Court settlement inter-se parties. 4. Per-contra separate response filed on behalf of complainant Akshay pleaded therein that he has no objection if the petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. 5. Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner and learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of non-petitioner No. 1 and learned Advocate appearing on behalf of non-petitioner No. 2 and perused the entire record carefully. 6. Following points arise for determination in the present case: 1) Whether petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of petition as alleged? 2) Final order. Findings upon Point No. 1 with reasons. 7. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner that out of Court settlement executed inter-se parties and permission to compound the present case be granted while exercising inherent powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C. read with Section 320 Cr. P.C. is accepted for the reason hereinafter mentioned. Complainant Akshay personally appeared before the Court and stated that parties are residents of same locality and in order to keep harmonious relations between the parties out of Court settlement has been executed inter-se parties. Statement of accused Sahil also recorded and placed on record. Accused Sahil has stated that statement given by the complainant is correct and permission to compound the case be granted. In view of the fact that complainant and accused are residents of same locality and in view of the fact that out of Court settlement has been executed inter-se parties and in order to keep harmonious relations inter se parties it is expedient in the ends of justice to allow the petition. 8. In view of the fact that complainant and accused are residents of same locality and in view of the fact that out of Court settlement has been executed inter-se parties and in order to keep harmonious relations inter se parties it is expedient in the ends of justice to allow the petition. 8. It was held in case reported in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and Another, 2012 (10) SCC 303 that all criminal offences relating to (i) Commercial (ii) Financial (iii) Mercantile (iv) Civil (v) Partnership (vi) Matrimonial (vii) Dowry (viii) Family disputes are basically private or personal criminal offences in nature and High Court may compound the case and quash the criminal proceedings while exercising inherent powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C. read with Section 320 Cr. P.C. Offence punishable under Section 324 IPC is non-compoundable criminal case. 9. In view of submission of complainant and in view of submission of accused placed on record and in view of the fact that complainant and accused are residents of same locality and in order to keep harmonious relations between the parties Court is of the opinion that it is expedient in the ends of justice to give permission to the parties to compound the case while exercising inherent powers under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Point No. 1 is answered in affirmative. Point No. 2 (Final order). 10. In view of my findings on point No. 1 above permission to compound the present case is granted under Section 482 Cr. P.C. read with Section 320 Cr. P.C. in the ends of justice and accused is discharged qua offence punishable under section 324 IPC and proceedings before the learned trial Court relating to Criminal Case No. 111-II/15 titled State vs. Sahil are quashed in the ends of justice. Statements of complainant Akshay and accused Sahil placed on record will form part and parcel of order. File of learned trial Court along with certified copy of this order be sent back forthwith and file of the High Court be sent to Record Room after due completion. Cr. MMO No. 325 of 2015 and Cr. MP No. 1517 of 2015 are disposed of. Pending applications if any also disposed of.