Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1102 (HP)

Amin Chand v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2018-06-15

DHARAM CHAND CHAUDHARY

body2018
JUDGMENT : Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. 1. Complainant-respondent No. 2 Rahul @ Bhagi was running photography shop and dealing with the business of Readymade garments also in a shop situated at Nagrota Bagwan market. The shop was taken on rent by him from the accused-petitioners. Some altercation seems to have taken place amongst them on 9.11.2016 around 1:30 P.M. This has led in registration of FIR No. 184 of 2016 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 451, 147, 149 and 448 IPC against the accused-petitioners. 2. On completion of the investigation, the police has filed report Annexure P-2 to this petition in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kangra. The status report filed by the respondent-State reveals that charge against the accused-petitioners stand framed and the trial presently is at the stage of recording prosecution evidence. The parties belongs to the same area. On finding that due to registration of case against the accused-petitioners their relations have become strained and the animosity between two families is likely to be increased during the time to come, they have patched-up the differences amongst them amicably. The possession of the shop which seems to be bone of contention between the parties stand delivered by respondent No. 2-complainant to the accused-petitioners. Respondent No. 2-complainant is now no more interested to prosecute the criminal case registered at his instance against the accused-petitioners any further. 3. The offence allegedly committed by the accused-petitioners under Sections 451 and 448 IPC is compoundable under Section 320(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, the offence punishable under Section 147 and 149 of the Code is not compoundable, hence this petition for quashing the FIR and also the consequential criminal proceedings on the basis of the compromise Annexure P-3 to this petition. 4. Before coming to answer the question ibid, it is desirable to take note of the law applicable in a case of this nature. A Larger Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and Another, (2012) 10 SCC 303 has laid down the guidelines to be followed by the High Courts while considering a question of quashing FIR on the basis of compromise. A Larger Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and Another, (2012) 10 SCC 303 has laid down the guidelines to be followed by the High Courts while considering a question of quashing FIR on the basis of compromise. It has been held in this judgment 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. Such powers can be exercised 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 also takes note of the fact that FIR on the basis of compromise should not be quashed in a case of serious nature like rape, dacoity and corruption etc., having serious impact in the society. 5. The Apex Court in Narinder Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab and Another, (2014) 6 SCC 466 while quashing the FIR in a case registered under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code has held as under: “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 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. 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.” 6. The Apex Court in a recent judgment titled Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Others vs. State of Gujarat and Another, (2017) 9 SCC 641 has reiterated the broad principles need to be followed while considering the prayer for quashing the FIR and consequential criminal proceedings on the basis of compromise, which reads as follow:- “16. The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject, may be summarised in the following propositions: 16.1. Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court. 16.2. The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a First Information Report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable. 16.3. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable. 16.3. In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power. 16.4. While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court. 16.5. The decision as to whether a complaint or First Information Report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated. 16.6. In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences. 16.7. As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing in so far as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned. 16.8. Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute. 16.9. In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice. 16.10. 16.9. In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice. 16.10. There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions 16.8 and 16.9 above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the state have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance. 7. As per the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in the judgment ibid, the inherent powers to quash criminal proceedings should be exercised to secure the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of process of any Court. Also that, criminal proceedings should be quashed in those cases where the possibility of conviction is remote and the continuation of the criminal proceedings would cause oppression and prejudice, of course, as per law laid down. There should be due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed even if the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. It has further been held in this judgment that such offences are not private in nature but have serious impact upon the society also. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences. 8. Applying the ratio of the judgments supra in the given facts and circumstances of this case, the complainant and accused persons have now settled all disputes amicably. Respondent No. 2-complainant is no more interested to prosecute the accused-petitioners any further in the pending criminal case. Therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing the criminal proceedings to continue against the accused-petitioners. 9. Being so, this petition is allowed. Respondent No. 2-complainant is no more interested to prosecute the accused-petitioners any further in the pending criminal case. Therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing the criminal proceedings to continue against the accused-petitioners. 9. Being so, this petition is allowed. Consequently, FIR No. 184/2016 Annexure P-1 and consequential criminal proceedings i.e. Police challan No. 22-II/2017 titled State vs. Amin Chand and Others pending before learned Judicial Magistrate, Court No. II, Kangra District Kangra HP are ordered to be quashed and set aside. The petition is accordingly disposed of. 10. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of. 11. An authenticated copy of this judgment be sent to learned JMIC, Court No. II, Kangra District Kangra, HP for compliance.