Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1996 (HP)

Ayush v. State Of Himachal Pradesh

2018-11-16

VIVEK SINGH THAKUR

body2018
JUDGMENT Vivek Singh Thakur, J. - The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ''Cr.PC'') has been filed by petitioneraccused, for quashing FIR No. 210 of 2018, dated 14th October, 2018, registered under Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ''IPC'') and under Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, (hereinafter referred to as ''SC& ST Act'') at Police Station Dhalli, District Shimla, H.P., on the basis of compromise arrived at between petitioneraccused and complainantrespondent No. 2. 2. Respondent No. 2complainant, Dr.Aman Thakur, present in person in Court, duly identified by counsel, in his statement, recorded on oath in this Court, has endorsed the compromise with petitioner-accused with free consent and will, without any coercion and pressure and has also deposed to the effect that the unfortunate incident had taken place on account of behaviour of the petitioner, under the influence of alcohol, for which, later on, petitioner had repented and had submitted written apology. But by that time, he had already lodged a complaint with the police, resulting into registration of F.I.R. No.210 of 2018 in Police Station, Dhalli. Further that he is an intern M.B.B.S., whereas the petitioner is student of 3rd year of Orthopaedics, in I.G.M.C., Shimla. Before the incident, he and petitioner were having cordial relations and now after the compromise, they are having good terms with each other. For peaceful and harmonious relations and also, that the petitioner has repentance for his behaviour, he intends to withdraw the present F.I.R. and does not want to continue with any criminal proceedings with respect to the incident against the petitioner. 3. The petitioner, in his statement on oath has also endorsed the statement made by respondent No.2/ complainant and submitted that alleged incident was not intentional but because of under the influence of liquor. 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 an offence not compoundable under Section 320 Cr.PC. 5. Three Judges Bench of the Apex Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Ors. 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. 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. 7. No doubt Section 452 of IPC and Section 3 of SC&ST Act 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. In present case, the complainant/respondent No.2 is an intern M.B.B.S., whereas the petitioner is student of 3rd year of Orthopaedics, in I.G.M.C., Shimla. Therefore, for continuation of peaceful, harmonious relations and also, that the petitioner has repentance for his behaviour, I find that it is a fit case to exercise power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and further even otherwise if criminal proceedings are allowed to continue, no fruitful purpose is going to be served as petitioner is not a criminal but a student. 9. Further, offence in question does 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. 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. 210 of 2018, dated 14th October, 2018, registered under Section 452 of IPC and under Section 3 of the SC& ST Act, at Police Station Dhalli, District Shimla, H.P. is quashed. 11. Petition stands disposed of in above terms.