Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1938 (HP)

Tarlochan Singh Virk v. State Of H P

2018-11-05

VIVEK SINGH THAKUR

body2018
JUDGMENT Vivek Singh Thakur, J. - This petition has been filed by petitioneraccused, pending consideration of challan in criminal proceedings in case under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code in FIR No. 98 dated 4.12.2015, registered with Police Station, Dalhousie, District Chamba, H.P., for quashing the FIR and criminal proceedings initiated in pursuance thereto, on the basis of compromise, (Annexure P-2) dated 2.10.2018, arrived at between petitioner-accused and complainant-respondents No. 2 to 4. 2. In present case, complainant/respondent No.3 is also special power of attorney of his father/respondent No.2 and duly authorized agent of his brother/respondent No.4, complainant/respondent No.2 and petitioner/accused have appeared in person in the Court. Their statements on oath have been recorded. It is stated by petitioner/accused that respondent No. 2 Om Parkash Sharma is his old friend and he was having good relations with him and now also, he is having good relations with him and further stated that during intervening period, on account of some misunderstanding, the dispute has arisen between two families which had led registration of FIR No. 98 of 2015. It is also stated by him that now as the dispute has been resolved and as per compromise deed, all civil and criminal proceedings are to be withdrawn by respective parties, present FIR is also required to be quashed on the basis of said compromise. Respondents No. 2 to 4 are also having no objections for quashing of FIR in pursuant to compromise arrived at between the parties. It is stated that as per Clause 3, either respondent No. 2 had to file an application or make statement to that effect and as per Clause 6 of agreement, parties have also agreed not to re-open the issue determined between the parties with respect to property in question in the compromise by filing any sort of litigation or complaint against each other. Therefore, he has prayed for quashing of FIR. It is further stated that during investigation, his passport was also seized by the orders of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chamba at the time of enlarging him on anticipatory bail. He has also prayed for release of his passport soon so that he can go to his daughters living in Canada. 3. Therefore, he has prayed for quashing of FIR. It is further stated that during investigation, his passport was also seized by the orders of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chamba at the time of enlarging him on anticipatory bail. He has also prayed for release of his passport soon so that he can go to his daughters living in Canada. 3. Respondent No. 3 and 4 are sons of respondent No.2 and respondent No. 3 is also having special power of attorney of respondent No.2 and special authorization of respondent No.4 and they have authorized respondent No.3 to make statement on their behalf. Respondent No. 3 has not only endorsed the statement of petitioner/accused but has also reiterated signing of the compromise by parties with free consent and will without any coercion and pressure and also deposed to the effect that required steps as per compromise deed i.e. execution of sale deed, demarcation of property and raising of wall and payments related thereto have also been executed and complied with and nothing is due to be performed in pursuant to compromise deed and thus has also prayed for quashing of FIR. 4. It is contended on behalf of respondent-State that accused is not entitled to invoke inherent jurisdiction of this Court to exercise its power on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties with respect to offences not compoundable under Section 320 Cr.PC. 5. Three Judges Bench of the Apex Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Ors. reported in , (2012) 10 SCC 303 , explaining that High Court has inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with no statutory limitation including Section 320 Cr.PC, has held that these powers are to be exercised to secure the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process of any Court and these powers can be exercised to quash criminal proceedings or complaint or FIR in appropriate cases where offender and victim have settled their dispute and for that purpose no definite category of offence can be prescribed. However, it is also observed that Courts must have due regard to nature and gravity of the crime and criminal proceedings in heinous and serious offences or offence like murder, rape and dacoity etc. should not be quashed despite victim or victim family have settled the dispute with offender. However, it is also observed that Courts must have due regard to nature and gravity of the crime and criminal proceedings in heinous and serious offences or offence like murder, rape and dacoity etc. should not be quashed despite victim or victim family have settled the dispute with offender. Jurisdiction vested in High Court under Section 482 Cr.PC is held to be exercisable for quashing criminal proceedings in cases having overwhelming and predominatingly civil flavour particularly offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil partnership, or such like transactions, or even offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry etc., family disputes or other such disputes where wrong is basically private or personal nature where parties mutually resolve their dispute amicably. It was also held that no category or cases for this purpose could be prescribed and each case has to be dealt with on its own merit but it is also clarified that this power does not extend to crimes against society. 6. The Apex Court, in case Narinder Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab and Ors. , (2014) 6 SCC 466 , has sum up and laid down principles, by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with criminal proceedings. 7. No doubt Sections 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC are not compoundable under Section 320 Cr. P.C. However, as explained by Hon''ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh''s and Narinder Singh''s cases supra, power of High Court under Section 482 CrPC is not inhibited by the provisions of Section 320 CrPC and FIR as well as criminal proceedings can be quashed by exercising inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC, if warranted in given facts and circumstances of the case for ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court, even in those cases which are not compoundable where parties have settled the matter between themselves. 8. Petitioner/Accused and complainant/respondent No.3 have endorsed the compromise filed with petition duly signed by parties with free consent and will without any coercion. 8. Petitioner/Accused and complainant/respondent No.3 have endorsed the compromise filed with petition duly signed by parties with free consent and will without any coercion. The statements of complainant and accused recorded on oath in the Court, reflect that even in case criminal proceedings are allowed to continue, there is no probability of conviction of accused. According to petitioner/accused, present dispute stands resolved between parties which has been reduced into writing in compromise deed Annexure P-2 and as per Clause 3, either respondent No. 2 had to file an application or make statement to that effect and as per Clause 6 of agreement, parties have also agreed not to re-open the issue determined between the parties with respect to property in question in the compromise by filing any sort of litigation or complaint against each other. Respondent No. 3 as well as petitioner/accused have categorically stated that in view of above circumstances, they are not interested to continue with civil as well as criminal proceedings against accused. 9. Offences in question do not fall in the category of offences prohibited for compounding in terms of the pronouncements of the Apex Court by exercising power under Section 482 of the CrPC. In view of statements of respondent No. 3-complainant and petitioner/accused recorded on oath in this Court, probability of conviction is also too remote. 10. Keeping in view nature and gravity of offence and considering facts and circumstances of the case in entirety, I am of the opinion that present petition deserves to be allowed for ends of justice and the same is allowed accordingly and FIR No.98 of 2015, dated 4.12.2015, registered under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 IPC at Police Station, Dalhousie, District Chamba, H.P. is quashed and needless to say that consequent proceedings initiated in pursuance thereto also stand quashed. 11. Consequent to quashing of FIR, the passport which is stated to have been seized by Investigating Agency under the orders of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chamba, is directed to be released to the petitioner/accused on the production of copy of this order. Petition stands disposed of in above terms. Dasti copy on usual terms.