Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2010 (HP)

Ashok Gupta 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 ''CrPC'') has been filed by petitionersaccused, for quashing FIR No. 131 of 2014, dated 3rd October, 2014, registered under Sections 341, 323, 504 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ''IPC'') at Police Station Sadar, District Shimla, H.P., and criminal proceedings initiated in pursuance thereto, on the basis of compromise, copy whereof has been furnished in the Court, arrived at between petitionersaccused and complainantrespondent No. 2. 2. Respondent No. 2complainant, Rajinder Narula, present in person in Court, duly identified by counsel, endorses compromise and in his statement, recorded on oath in this Court, has not only reiterated signing of the compromise by him with petitionersaccused with free consent and will, without any coercion and pressure, but, also deposed to the effect that the unfortunate incident had taken place on account of misunderstanding, which stands clarified and dispute has been resolved and he has compromised the matter with the petitioners and he does not want to continue or initiate any criminal proceeding against the petitioners and has prayed for permission to compound the case. 3. The petitioner Ashok Gupta in his statement on oath recorded separately, has also realized his mistake and has endorsed the compromise arrived at between the parties and further stated that he has heard the statement of complainant/respondent No.2 Rajinder Narula and has endorsed the same to be true and correct. He has further stated that the unfortunate incident could have been avoided, but it had happened on account of misunderstanding and that he had already apologized for that and the matter has been compromised with the complainant and he has also prayed that offence may be permitted to be compounded after quashing the F.I.R. lodged by the complainant. 4. It is submitted on behalf of respondent No. 1State that all offences involved in present case are compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C. 5. It is apt to record herein that a three Judge Bench of the Apex Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Ors. 4. It is submitted on behalf of respondent No. 1State that all offences involved in present case are compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C. 5. It is apt to record herein that a three Judge 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.P.C., 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.P.C. 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. reported in , (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. As explained by Hon''ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh''s and Narinder Singh''s cases supra, 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, complainant has also appeared in person in this Court and his statement on oath, as discussed in para 2 supra, has also been recorded in this Court. He has also expressed no objection, in compounding the offences, rather he has compromised the matter with petitionersaccused. 9. Offences in question, for material on record, do not fall in the category of offences termed to be prohibited, in the pronouncements of Apex Court, to be compounded exercising power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. From statements of respondent No. 2complainant and petitioner Ashok Gupta, recorded on oath in this Court, it is evident that unfortunate incident had taken place on account of misunderstanding, which stands clarified and has been resolved/compromised. 10. Keeping in view the ratio of law laid down by the Hon''ble Apex Court and considering facts and evidence of the case in its entirety, present petition is allowed and matter is permitted to be compounded. Consequently, FIR No. 131 of 2014, dated 3rd October, 2014, registered under Sections 341, 323, 504 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Sadar, District Shimla, H.P., is quashed. Consequent to quashing of FIR, criminal proceedings, in case No.900115/2015 vide CNR No.HPSH110005412015, pending before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimla, H.P., also stands quashed. 11. Petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Copy dasti.