Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 290 (HP)

Rajesh Kumar Chauhan v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2018-03-09

DHARAM CHAND CHAUDHARY

body2018
JUDGMENT : Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. This judgment shall dispose of both petitions filed with a prayer to quash the two FIRs registered in Police Station, Baijnath, District Kangra at the instance of the accused petitioners and respondent No. 2 (complainant) against each other. The FIR bearing No. 0100 of 2017 against the accused petitioners in petition No. 7 of 2018 though initially was registered under Sections 341, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian penal Code, however, during the course of investigation the case converted into under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC. One of the accused-petitioner in petition No. 7 of 2018, namely, Rajesh Kumar Chauhan has also registered a cross case against Chaman Lal-respondent No. 2 pertaining to the same occurrence in Police Station, Baijnath on the same day vide FIR No. 0101 of 2017 under Sections 341, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 IPC. 2. Learned Additional Advocate General has placed on record the status report. The perusal whereof reveals that the investigation is complete and the challan though has been prepared, however, not yet filed in the Court. Therefore, both cases are at its initial stage. 3. The parties on both sides in their statements recorded separately have stated that the occurrence was the result of misunderstanding. Accordingly, the cases against each other also came be to registered by them on account of such misunderstanding. They have now realized the same and decided not to prosecute the criminal cases, they registered against each other. 4. It is seen that an offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC is not compoundable under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The apex Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another, (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 30 has however, held that the High Court in exercise of inherent powers vested in it under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure may quash FIR/criminal proceedings in a case where the offence allegedly committed by an accused though is not compoundable, however, in case the victim and accused have settled the differences amicably the inherent powers of the High Court can be pressed in service for quashing the proceedings. Such powers however can be exercised sparingly and only in appropriate cases, having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such other transactions of like nature including matrimonial or the case relating to dowry etc. in which the wrong basically is done to the victim. This judgment further reveals that the compounding of offence in a case of serious nature like rape, dacoity and corruption etc. having serious impact in the society is not permissible. 5. The Punjab and Haryana High Court in Karamvir Singh vs. State of Punjab and another, Crl. Misc. No. M-1586 of 2013 (O&M) decided on 13.9.2013 after placing reliance on Full Bench judgment of the same High Court in Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR(Criminal) 1052 and also that of Apex Court in Gian Singh’s case supra has allowed the compounding of offence in a case punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code in the similar circumstances with the observation that since the parties have arrived at a compromise and decided to live in peace, no useful purpose would be served by allowing the proceedings to continue. 6. The Apex Court in Narinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another, (2014) 6 Supreme Court Cases 466 has even quashed the FIR in a case under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code with the following observations: “We have gone through the FIR as well which was recorded on the basis of statement of the complainant/victim. It gives an indication that the complainant was attacked allegedly by the accused persons because of some previous dispute between the parties, though nature of dispute etc. is not stated in detail. However, a very pertinent statement appears on record viz., “respectable persons have been trying for a compromise up till now, which could not be finalized”. This becomes an important aspect. It appears that there have been some disputes which led to the aforesaid purported attack by the accused on the complainant. In this context when we find that the elders of the village, including Sarpanch, intervened in the matter and the parties have not only buried their hatchet but have decided to live peacefully in future, this becomes an important consideration. The evidence is yet to be led in the Court. It has not even started. In this context when we find that the elders of the village, including Sarpanch, intervened in the matter and the parties have not only buried their hatchet but have decided to live peacefully in future, this becomes an important consideration. The evidence is yet to be led in the Court. It has not even started. In view of compromise between parties, there is a minimal chance of the witnesses coming forward in support of the prosecution case. Even though nature of injuries can still be established by producing the doctor as witness who conducted medical examination, it may become difficult to prove as to who caused these injuries. The chances of conviction, therefore, appear to be remote. It would, therefore, be unnecessary to drag these proceedings. We, taking all these factors into consideration cumulatively, are of the opinion that the compromise between the parties be accepted and the criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No. 121 dated 14.7.2010 registered with Police Station LOPOKE, District Amritsar Rural be quashed. We order accordingly.” 7. Such being the legal position coupled with the factum of both parties have now decided not to prosecute the cases, they registered against each other as per their statements recorded separately, no useful purpose is likely to be served in case the FIRs are not quashed for the reasons that in view of the compromise now arrived at between the parties they are not likely to depose against each other. Therefore, chances of conviction of the accused in both cases are bleak. The cases registered at the instance of both parties against each other are yet at its initial stage because report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. is also not filed. Allowing the criminal proceedings to continue in these cases would, therefore, be nothing but merely an abuse of process of law. 8. In view of what has said hereinabove, both petitions are allowed. Consequently, both FIRs i.e. 0100 and 0101 of 2017 registered in Police Station, Baijnath, District Kangra are hereby quashed. The petitions stand disposed of.