Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 588 (HP)

Vikas Kashyap v. State of H. P.

2017-05-25

DHARAM CHAND CHAUDHARY

body2017
JUDGMENT : Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. Petitioner is an accused in FIR No.176/14 registered under Sections 279, 337 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 187 of Motor Vehicles Act, in Police Station, Indora, District Kangra on 22.9.2014 at the instance of Prabhat Kumar, respondent No.2- complainant. 2. Mr. Ashish Verma, Advocate learned counsel representing the accused-petitioner has informed this Court that the challan in the case stands filed, which has been registered as criminal case No.33-II/2016 and pending disposal in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Indora, District Kangra. 3. Admittedly, charge has not been framed against the accused-petitioner, therefore, the pending criminal case is presently at its initial stage. Mr. Ashish Verma while placing reliance on a judgment of this Court in Cr.MMO No.134 of 2016, titled Shyam Singh versus State of H.P. & Another decided on 20.9.2016, has prayed for quashing of FIR and also the pending criminal proceedings. 4. It is seen that an offence punishable under Section 279 of the Indian Penal code is not compoundable under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The apex Court, however, in Gian Singh versus State of Punjab and another, (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 303 has held that the High Court in exercise of inherent powers vested in it under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure may quash FIR/criminal proceedings in a case where the offence allegedly committed by the accused though is not compoundable, however, the victim and accused have settled the differences amicably. The powers, of Court can be exercised sparingly and only in appropriate cases, having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such other transactions of like nature including matrimonial or the case relating to dowry etc., in which the wrong basically is done to the victim. This judgment further reveals that the compounding of offence in a case of serious nature like rape, dacoity and corruption etc., having serious impact in the society is not permissible. 5. The Punjab and Haryana High Court in Karamvir Singh versus State of Punjab and another, Crl. Misc. This judgment further reveals that the compounding of offence in a case of serious nature like rape, dacoity and corruption etc., having serious impact in the society is not permissible. 5. The Punjab and Haryana High Court in Karamvir Singh versus State of Punjab and another, Crl. Misc. No. M-1586 of 2013 (O&M) decided on 13.9.2013 after placing reliance on Full Bench judgment of the same High Court in Kulwinder Singh and others versus State of Punjab, 2007(3)RCR (Criminal) 1052 and also that of Apex Court in Gian Singh’s case supra has allowed the compounding of offence in a case punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code in the similar circumstances with the observation that since the parties have arrived at a compromise and decided to live in peace, no useful purpose would be served in allowing the proceedings to continue. 6. The Apex Court in Narinder Singh and others versus State of Punjab and another, (2014) 6 Supreme Court Cases 466 has even quashed the FIR under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code with the following observations: “We have gone through the FIR as well which was recorded on the basis of statement of the complainant/victim. It gives an indication that the complainant was attacked allegedly by the accused persons because of some previous dispute between the parties, though nature of dispute etc. is not stated in detail. However, a very pertinent statement appears on record viz., ‘respectable persons have been trying for a compromise up till now, which could not be finalized’. This becomes an important aspect. It appears that there have been some disputes which led to the aforesaid purported attack by the accused on the complainant. In this context when we find that the elders of the village, including Sarpanch, intervened in the matter and the parties have not only buried their hatchet but have decided to live peacefully in future, this becomes an important consideration. The evidence is yet to be led in the Court. It has not even started. In view of compromise between parties, there is a minimal chance of the witnesses coming forward in support of the prosecution case. Even though nature of injuries can still be established by producing the doctor as witness who conducted medical examination, it may become difficult to prove as to who caused these injuries. It has not even started. In view of compromise between parties, there is a minimal chance of the witnesses coming forward in support of the prosecution case. Even though nature of injuries can still be established by producing the doctor as witness who conducted medical examination, it may become difficult to prove as to who caused these injuries. The chances of conviction, therefore, appear to be remote. It would, therefore, be unnecessary to drag these proceedings. We, taking all these factors into consideration cumulatively, are of the opinion that the compromise between the parties be accepted and the criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No.121 dated 14.7.2010 registered with Police Station LOPOKE, District Amritsar Rural be quashed. We order accordingly.” 7. Be it stated that in a recent judgment title Mohar Singh versus State of Rajasthan, (2015) 11 Supreme Court Cases 226 the Apex Court though has refused to do so on the ground that the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is not compoundable, however, reduced the sentence awarded against the accused. In Mohar Singh’s case the Hon’ble Apex Court has refused to grant the permission to compound the offence against the accused because in that case the accused was convicted after holding full trial not only by the trial Court but also by the High Court and it is such factors appear to have weighed with the Supreme Court while declining the permission to compound the offence as was sought in that case. 8. Now coming to the case in hand, the complainant-respondent No.2 is no more interested to prosecute the pending criminal case against the accused-petitioner any further. Both, accused-petitioner and respondent No.2-complainant, are present in person. Their statements have been recorded separately. Like in Narinder Singh’s case supra, the proceedings in the criminal case presently are at its initial stage as charge has not yet been framed against the accused-petitioner. In view of the amicable settlement, respondent No.2-complainant is not going to support the prosecution case. Therefore, even if the trial is allowed to continue, the chances of conviction of the accused-petitioner will be bleak. Therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing the criminal proceedings against the accused-petitioner to continue. Allowing such proceedings to continue would rather amount to abuse of the process of law. 9. The petition as such is allowed. Therefore, even if the trial is allowed to continue, the chances of conviction of the accused-petitioner will be bleak. Therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing the criminal proceedings against the accused-petitioner to continue. Allowing such proceedings to continue would rather amount to abuse of the process of law. 9. The petition as such is allowed. Consequently FIR No. 176/14 Annexure P-1, registered against the accused-petitioner in Police Station, Indora and also the subsequent criminal proceedings pending disposal in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Indora, District Kangra, is ordered to be quashed. The petition is accordingly disposed of.