Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2207 (HP)

Nokh Ram Garg v. State Of H P

2018-12-13

VIVEK SINGH THAKUR

body2018
JUDGMENT Vivek Singh Thakur, J. - Present petition has been filed for quashing of FIR No. 156 of 2016 dated 17.6.2016 registered under Sections 323 and 452 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code at P.S. Shimla West (Boileauganj), District Shimla H.P., and criminal proceedings initiated in pursuance thereto, on the basis of compromise, arrived at between petitioneraccused and complainant-respondent No. 3. 2. Petitioner/Accused and respondent No. 3- complainant are present in Court, who are duly identified by their respective counsel. Their statements on oath have also been recorded. 3. In the present case, complainant-respondent No.3 was the tenant of petitioners No. 1 and 2 and they (petitioners No. 1 and 2) have also lodged the cross FIR No. 155 of 2016 against the complainant i.e. respondent No.3 and dispute, as alleged to have been occurred, for certain differences of opinion, which now stands settled. 4. Complainant (Respondent No.3), in his deposition has endorsed the compromise and has prayed for quashing the FIR and proceedings initiated against petitioner No.2/accused. In his statement he has stated that he is complainant in case FIR No. 156 of 2016 dated 17.6.2016 registered in P.S. Shimla West (Boileauganj) District Shimla and he was tenant of petitioners No. 1 and 2 and petitioner No. 2 has also lodged a complaint against him and his family by registering an FIR No. 155 of 2016 dated 17.6.2016 in P.S. Boileauganj. He has also stated that being a landlord and tenant, for certain differences of opinion the dispute had arisen between them, which now stands settled and he along with his family have vacated the premises and now he is not tenant of petitioners, but before vacating the premises, matter has been compromised with petitioner No.1 Nokh Ram and his family and the same has been reduced in writing and placed on record with this petition. He has further stated that same has been signed by petitioner No. 1 and him and as per this compromise, he wants to withdraw the complaint lodged by him for quashing of FIR as well as criminal proceedings in pursuant thereto and in turn petitioner No. 2 Sita Devi has also agreed to withdraw her complaint in FIR No. 155 of 2016. He has stated that compromise so arrived at is out of his free will and consent and without any threat, pressure or coercion. 5. He has stated that compromise so arrived at is out of his free will and consent and without any threat, pressure or coercion. 5. The petitioner No.2/accused also, in her statement, has endorsed the statement of complainant with undertaking to withdraw her complaint for quashing FIR No. 155 of 2016 for which separate petitioner Cr.MMO No. 527 of 2018 has been filed by Jagat Ram, respondent No. 3, and his family. She has further stated that her deposition in Court is with her free consent and will and also without any threat, coercion or pressure etc. and prayed for disposal of present petition in terms of compromise. 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. 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. 9. No doubt Section 452 of IPC is 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. 10. In present case, there is a dispute between the landlord and tenant on account of some differences and a cross FIR No. 155 of 2016 dated 17.6.2016 has been registered against respondent No.3 and his family, but now as respondent No. 3 and his family have vacated the premises of petitioners No.1 and 2 and before vacating the same, they have settled the dispute amicably, 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. 11. 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. 12. 11. 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. 12. 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.156 of 2016, dated 17.6.2016, registered under Sections 323 and 452 read with Section 34 IPC at Police Station, Shimla West (Boileauganj), District Shimla, H.P. is quashed. Consequent to quashing of FIR, criminal proceedings initiated against accused in pursuance thereto, in case No. 15-2 of 2017 pending before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimla are also quashed. 13. Petition stands disposed of in above terms. Dasti copy on usual terms.