Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 905 (HP)

KAMLENDER KASHYAP v. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

2018-05-16

SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2018
JUDGMENT : SURESHWAR THAKUR, J. 1. The instant petition stands instituted at the instance of the petitioner, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, for seeking relief qua quashing of FIR No. 32/2018 of 25.1.2018 registered with police Station, Solan Sadar, wherein the petitioner herein is alleged to commit offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of Indian Penal Code, and, Section 187 of Motor Vehicles Act. Besides a prayer has been made therein qua criminal proceeding in consequence therewith launched against the petitioner herein and pending before the court concerned being also ordered to be quashed and set aside. 2. Today the complainant in his statement rendered on oath, reduced into writing and signatured by him, has therein portrayed, that he has developed friendly relations with the petitioner, and, for maintaining them, and, for avoiding eruption of bitterness, and, moreso when the petitioner has paid all the expenses towards repair of his vehicle, and, towards his medical treatment, and, he hence has entered into a compromise with him. The injured victims also in their statements rendered on oath, reduced into writing and signatured by them, have also portrayed therein that they have entered into a compromise with the petitioner. Obviously, thereupon the pendency of FIR and the criminal proceedings launched in pursuance thereto, would cause an impediment in the revival of or the smooth grooming, of, healthy and sound relations inter-se them. The desire and aspiration of the petitioner/accused, and, of the complainant, and, the victims', hence, to promote inter-se cordiality ought not to be frustrated rather it ought to be revered. 3. Further more, even though some offences constituted in the FIR may not be compoundable, hence, obviously theirs being settled, through, a deed of compromise may also not be permissible. The desire and aspiration of the petitioner/accused, and, of the complainant, and, the victims', hence, to promote inter-se cordiality ought not to be frustrated rather it ought to be revered. 3. Further more, even though some offences constituted in the FIR may not be compoundable, hence, obviously theirs being settled, through, a deed of compromise may also not be permissible. However, in the face of a verdict of the Hon'ble Apex Court, rendered, in case titled Gian Singh Versus State of Punjab & another, (2012) 10 SCC 303 , the relevant paragraph whereof is extracted hereinafter, wherein it stands mandated (i), that, where the victims of the offence, and, the accused come to record, a settlement/strike, a, compromise even qua non-compoundable offences (ii) thereupon hence would rather not pave way for the success of the complaint/prosecution rather the prosecution of the offender, for, his allegedly committing the apt non-compoundable offences, would be an exercise in futility, being, a preponderant and preeminent factor, to be borne in mind, by this Court, while exercising the plenary jurisdiction vested in it, under, Section 482 Cr.P.C. "58. Where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that the dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled although the offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. No doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful effect on the public and consist in wrongdoing that seriously endangers and threats the well being of the society and it is not safe to leave the crime-doer only because he and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the victim has been paid compensation, yet certain crimes have been made compoundable in law, with or without the permission of the Court. In respect of serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., or other offences of mental depravity under IPC or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by the public servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between the offender and the victim can have no legal sanction at all. In respect of serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., or other offences of mental depravity under IPC or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by the public servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between the offender and the victim can have no legal sanction at all. However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to the victim and the offender and the victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or FIR if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated. The above list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Each case will depend on its own facts and no hard-and-fast category can be prescribed." 4. In aftermath, when it is also mandated therein, that for (I) securing/restoring peace, and, for putting the dispute inter-se the victim(s) /complainant of the offence and the accused, to rest, the courts of law can proceed to accept, the, settlement even when some of the offences constituted in the FIR are non-compoundable (ii) thereupon revering the verdict, of, the Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court accepts the joint proposal, of, the petitioner/accused, and, complainant, and, victims, to settle/compromise, the, dispute comprised in the FIR, even when some of the offence constituted therein, are, not compoundable. Consequently, while accepting the compromise, evidenced in the respectively rendered statements', of, the complainant, and, of the victims', constrains this Court to allow the petition. Accordingly, FIR aforesaid, and, the criminal proceedings pending against the accused/petitioner in the Court concerned, are, quashed and set aside. Petition stands disposed of, as also, pending applications, if any.