Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 967 (HP)

Savtantar Pal Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2018-05-23

DHARAM CHAND CHAUDHARY

body2018
JUDGMENT : Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. Petitioners herein are accused in FIR No. 355/2012 registered against them and late Shri Jagdish Singh under Sections 494, 495, 420, 406 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code in Police Station, Indora, District Kangra, H.P. Accused Jagdish Singh has expired during the course of investigation in the case. 2. Respondent No.2-complainant is legally wedded wife of petitioner No. 1 Savtantar Pal Singh. They, however, are residing separately on account of differences having cropped up between them and the registration of case against the accused-petitioners. Now, they have compromised the dispute. The compromise deed is Annexure P-1 to the petition. The respondent No.2-complainant is no more interested to prosecute the accused-petitioners any further in the criminal case registered against them at her instance. The statements of parties to this effect have been recorded separately. The criminal case presently is at the stage of consideration of charge. Since the offence allegedly committed under Sections 494, 495, 420, 406 is not compoundable either under Sections 320 and 321 of Cr.P.C., therefore, the FIR has been sought to be quashed by filing the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. As per legal position settled at this stage even in a case where compounding of an offence is not permissible the parties, viz the victim of an occurrence and the accused, if compromised the disputes between them in an amicable settlement may approach the High Court for quashing the FIR. The support in this regard can be drawn from the judgment of the apex Court in Gian Singh versus State of Punjab and another, (2012) 10 SCC 303 . The relevant text of this judgment reads as follows:- “58. Where High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that dispute between the offender and victim has been settled although 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 wrong doing that seriously endangers and threatens well-being of 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 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 Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between offender and 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 victim and the offender and 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 F.I.R if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of 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 view of the law laid down by the apex Court in the judgment supra, the High Court in exercise of the inherent powers vested in it under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure may quash the FIR in a case where the offence allegedly committed by the accused though is not compoundable; however, the victim and accused have settled the disputes amicably. Such power, of course, has to be exercised sparingly and only in appropriate cases, having arisen out of civil mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or any other transactions of like nature including matrimonial or the cases relating to dowry etc., in which the wrong basically is done to the victim. Such power, of course, has to be exercised sparingly and only in appropriate cases, having arisen out of civil mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or any other transactions of like nature including matrimonial or the cases relating to dowry etc., in which the wrong basically is done to the victim. The compounding of offence, however, is not permissible in the cases of serious nature like rape, dacoity, and corruption cases having serious impact in the society as a whole. 5. If applying the ratio of judgment supra, in the given facts and circumstances of this case, the complainant and accused persons have now settled all disputes amicably. The respondent No.2-complainant is no more interested to prosecute the accused-petitioners any further in the pending criminal case. The aggrieved party in this case is the complainant. She herself is not interested to prosecute the accused-petitioners any further in the criminal case. Therefore, the point in issue is squarely covered by the judgment of the Apex Court in Gian Singh’s case referred supra. Consequently, the petition is allowed and FIR No. 355/2012 is ordered to be quashed and set aside. The proceedings in pending criminal case titled State of H.P. versus Savtantar Pal Singh and others before learned JMIC, Indora will also stands quashed. The petition is accordingly disposed of. 6. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of. 7. An authenticated copy of this judgment be sent to learned JMIC, Indora, District Kangra, H.P. for compliance.