Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 571 (HP)

Bhagat Ram v. State Of Himachal Pradesh

2018-04-07

SANJAY KAROL

body2018
JUDGMENT Sanjay Karol, A.C.J —The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short Code ) has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing of F.I.R. No.41/2018, dated 3.3.2018, registered at Police Station, Dhalli, District Shimla, under the provisions of Sections 353, 332, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and further proceedings, if any. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant (respondent No.2) , who is working as an Inspector with the Himachal Road Transport Corporation at Dhalli, on 2.3.2018, at about 2:00 PM, while he was on duty, some Conductors including the petitioner were playing cards and were also drinking liquor and when he tried to stop them, he was beaten up by the petitioner as well as other Conductors. Hence, the aforesaid FIR came to be registered against the present petitioner and cross-FIR also stood registered against the complainant. 3. This petition stands filed on the premise that the matter stands compromised between the complainant and the petitioner vide Compromise Deed dated 20.3.2018 (Annexure P-2) . It has specifically come in the compromise deed that the present FIR and cross-FIR were lodged in the heat of the moment. 4. Learned Additional Advocate General has no objection for quashing of the aforesaid FIR. 5. This is not such a case wherein the offences for which petitioner has been charged can be stricto sensu held to be the offences against the State. Even otherwise, once the complainant has got recorded his statement in the aforesaid terms, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and the continuation of the criminal case against the petitioner would put him to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case. 6. In Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr. 6. In Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr. , (2014) 4 JT 573 , the Hon ble Supreme Court after summing up the legal position has laid down the following guidelines for the High Court in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its powers 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 the criminal proceedings, which reads thus:- (I) Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution. (II) When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure: (i) ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives. (III) Such a power is not be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, for offences alleged to have been committed under special statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by Public Servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender. (IV) On the other, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves. (IV) On the other, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves. (V) While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases. (VI) Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore is to be generally treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to proving the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc. Medical report in respect of injuries suffered by the victim can generally be the guiding factor. On the basis of this prima facie analysis, the High Court can examine as to whether there is a strong possibility of conviction or the chances of conviction are remote and bleak. In the former case it can refuse to accept the settlement and quash the criminal proceedings whereas in the later case it would be permissible for the High Court to accept the plea compounding the offence based on complete settlement between the parties. At this stage, the Court can also be swayed by the fact that the settlement between the parties is going to result in harmony between them which may improve their future relationship. (VII) While deciding whether to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code or not, timings of settlement play a crucial role. At this stage, the Court can also be swayed by the fact that the settlement between the parties is going to result in harmony between them which may improve their future relationship. (VII) While deciding whether to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code or not, timings of settlement play a crucial role. Those cases where the settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged commission of offence and the matter is still under investigation, the High Court may be liberal in accepting the settlement to quash the criminal proceedings/investigation. It is because of the reason that at this stage the investigation is still on and even the charge sheet has not been filed. Likewise, those cases where the charge is framed but the evidence is yet to start or the evidence is still at infancy stage, the High Court can show benevolence in exercising its powers favourably, but after prima facie assessment of the circumstances/material mentioned above. On the other hand, where the prosecution evidence is almost complete or after the conclusion of the evidence the matter is at the stage of argument, normally the High Court should refrain from exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code, as in such cases the trial court would be in a position to decide the case finally on merits and to come a conclusion as to whether the offence under Section 307 IPC is committed or not. Similarly, in those cases where the conviction is already recorded by the trial court and the matter is at the appellate stage before the High Court, mere compromise between the parties would not be a ground to accept the same resulting in acquittal of the offender who has already been convicted by the trial court. Here charge is proved under Section 307 IPC and conviction is already recorded of a heinous crime and, therefore, there is no question of sparing a convict found guilty of such a crime. 7. Keeping in view the aforesaid guidelines, it is not disputed that the parties have reached a settlement and on that basis have preferred the present proceedings seeking quashment of the FIR and further proceedings. 7. Keeping in view the aforesaid guidelines, it is not disputed that the parties have reached a settlement and on that basis have preferred the present proceedings seeking quashment of the FIR and further proceedings. Once the complainant, who is the affected person on account of this incident, does not want to hold the petitioner responsible, the quashing of such FIR and further proceedings, if any, would definitely be to secure the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of process of the Court. The facts of this case otherwise do not in any manner fall within the exceptions laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court where compromise cannot be entered into or the proceedings cannot be quashed. 8. Thus, taking holistic view of the matter and looking into all attending facts and circumstances, I find this case to be a fit case to exercise powers under Section 482 of the Code and accordingly F.I.R. No.41/2018, dated 3.3.2018, registered at Police Station, Dhalli, District Shimla, under the provisions of Sections 353, 332, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, is ordered to be quashed. Since the FIR stands quashed, the proceedings pending, if any, arising out of the said FIR, are rendered infructuous. However, the same are expressly quashed so as to obviate any confusion. With the aforesaid observations, present petition stands allowed and disposed of accordingly, so also, pending application(s) , if any.