Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2009 (HP)

Ankush Sharma v. State Of Himachal Pradesh

2018-11-19

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 petitioner-accused, for quashing FIR No. 110 of 2014, dated 7.8.2014, registered under Sections 354-A, 323, 504, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ''IPC'') at Police Station Sadar, District Shimla, H.P., on the basis of compromise arrived at between petitioner-accused and complainant-respondent No. 2. 2. Complainant-Respondent No.2, Ms. Pallavi Sharma who was present in person in Court on 12.10.2018, duly identified by counsel, in her statement, recorded on oath in this Court, has deposed out of free will and consent and without any coercion and pressure that she has settled the dispute with the petitioner-accused, Ankush Sharma as he has repentance for his acts. To avoid any adverse affect to his life and career, she had compromised the matter with him. She deposed that she does not want to continue the criminal proceedings, if any, initiated against the petitioner pursuant to the present FIR. She had also deposed that she does not want to continue the proceedings against co-accused Yashpal Sharma. 3. The petitioner Ankush, in his statement on oath has also endorsed the statement made by respondent No.2/ complainant and submitted that he has repentance for his acts and has decided not to repeat such acts in future. The deed of compromise placed on record has also been signed by him as 2nd party. He prayed permission to compound the present case. He has deposed out of his free will and consent and without any threat, coercion or pressure of any kind. Yash Pal, co-accused, present in person in Court, duly identified by counsel, in his statement, recorded on oath in this Court, has also endorsed the statement of complainant with free consent and will, without any coercion and pressure and has also deposed to the effect that on the day of unfortunate incident, he should not have acted in that manner. He further deposed that he had repentance for his act and conduct and undertook that he shall not repeat such act in future. He prayed that in view of the compromise entered into between petitioner-accused, Ankush Sharma and complainant-respondent No.2, Ms. Pallavi Sharma, the proceedings against them including the FIR may kindly be compounded 4. He further deposed that he had repentance for his act and conduct and undertook that he shall not repeat such act in future. He prayed that in view of the compromise entered into between petitioner-accused, Ankush Sharma and complainant-respondent No.2, Ms. Pallavi Sharma, the proceedings against them including the FIR may kindly be compounded 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. 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. 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 Section 354-A of the Indian Penal Code, is non 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 Cr.PC and FIR as well as criminal proceedings can be quashed by exercising inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.PC, 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 at the time of occurrence of incident, was a student of M.A. in the Himachal Pradesh University, whereas the petitioner Ankush is the only son and the sole bread earner for his parents. Co-petitioner Yash Pal is serving in the Indian Army and is also the sole bread earner for his family. Therefore, for continuation of peaceful, harmonious relations and also, that the petitioner and co-accused have repentance for their 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 and co-accused are not criminals. 9. Further, 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 Cr.PC. 10. 9. Further, 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 Cr.PC. 10. Keeping in view nature and gravity of offences 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. 110 of 2014, dated 7.8.2014, registered under Sections 354-A, 323, 504, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, at Police Station, Sadar, District Shimla, H.P., is quashed. Consequently, criminal proceedings pending before learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Court No.5, Shimla, H.P., in Criminal Case No.139/2 of 2014, titled as State Versus Yash Pal, are hereby rendered infructuous. Petition stands disposed of in above terms.