Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 125 (HP)

Gian Chand v. State Of Himachal Pradesh

2019-01-10

VIVEK SINGH THAKUR

body2019
JUDGMENT : VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, J. 1. The instant petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘CrPC’) has been filed by petitioners-accused, for quashing FIR No. 84 of 2017, dated 25.2.2017, registered under Sections 452, 323, 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) at Police Station Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P., and criminal proceedings initiated in pursuance thereto, on the basis of compromise, copy whereof has been furnished in the Court, arrived at between petitioners-accused and complainant/respondent No.2. 2. Respondent No. 2, present in person in Court, duly identified by counsel, endorses compromise and in her statement, recorded on oath in this Court, has not only reiterated signing of the compromise by her with petitioners-accused with free consent and will, without any coercion and pressure, but, also deposed to the effect that accused/petitioners are family members of her brother-in-law (Jeth) and present case F.I.R. was lodged by her against the petitioners as on account of misunderstanding, quarrel had taken place, which misunderstanding has been clarified now, the petitioners have also realized their mistake and she has pardoned them. They have compromised the matter and now they are in good talking terms and have developed good relations and that she is deposing in this Court out of free will and consent without any coercion, pressure and threat etc. She does not want to continue with the criminal proceedings initiated against the accused-petitioners and present case may be permitted to be compounded by quashing the present case F.I.R. lodged by her. 3. Petitioner No.4 Saurav Handa, in his statement, which is taken on record, stated on oath that his father petitioner No.1 could not attend the court on account of his illness and petitioner No. 2 and petitioner No.3 (mother and sister of petitioner No.4, respectively) are looking after him at home. He further stated on oath that they have realized their mistake and have undertaken not to repeat such untoward incident in future and has prayed for quashing of F.I.R. as matter stands compromised between the parties. He further stated that he is deposing in the Court of his free will and consent without any coercion, pressure and threat. 4. He further stated on oath that they have realized their mistake and have undertaken not to repeat such untoward incident in future and has prayed for quashing of F.I.R. as matter stands compromised between the parties. He further stated that he is deposing in the Court of his free will and consent without any coercion, pressure and threat. 4. It is contended on behalf of respondent No. 1-State that accused are 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.P.C. 5. It is apt to record herein that a 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.P.C., 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.P.C. 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. 6. The Apex Court in case Narinder Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab and Ors. 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. 6. The Apex Court in case Narinder Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab and Ors. reported in, (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. 7. In present case, respondent No.2 has also appeared in person in this Court and her statement on oath, as discussed in para 2 supra, has also been recorded in this Court. She has also expressed no objection, in compounding the offences, rather she has compromised the matter with petitioners-accused. 8. Offences in question do not fall in the category of offences termed to be prohibited, in the pronouncements of Apex Court, to be compounded exercising power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. From statements of respondent No.2 and petitioner No.4 Saurav Handa, recorded on oath in this Court, it is evident that parties are closely related and petitioners are not hard core criminals and now matter stands settled. 9. Keeping in view the ratio of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court and considering facts and evidence of the case in its entirety, present petition is allowed and matter is permitted to be compounded. Consequently, FIR No. 84 of 2017, dated 25.2.2017, registered under Sections 452, 323, 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, at Police Station Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P., and criminal proceedings pending in the Court of Ld.JMIC-II, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P. are quashed and set aside. 10. Petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.