Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 126 (HP)

Sidharath Sood v. State of H. P.

2019-01-10

VIVEK SINGH THAKUR

body2019
JUDGMENT : VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, J. 1. Since all these petitions arise out of the same FIR, hence these are consolidated in order to avoid repetition and are being decided together as common question of law and facts are involved in these cases. 2. Present petitions have been filed for quashing of FIR No. 50 of 2018 dated 2.5.2018 registered under Sections 379 and 120-B read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code at P.S. East Shimla, District Shimla H.P., and criminal proceedings, if any, initiated in pursuance thereto, on the basis of application of complainant-respondent No. 3. 2. Respondent No. 3-complainant is present in Court and his statement recorded on oath has also been placed on record. 3. In his statement, the complainant has stated that he is owner of car No. HP-62C-0293 and in the evening of 1.5.2018 he had parked his car near Panthaghati on the road side, but on the next day, he did not find his car, whereupon, he had lodged the complaint with police, resulting into registration of FIR No. 50 of 2018. He has further stated that on 3.5.2018, the said car was found to be parked on the next curve on the same road and on the same day, when lodging of report came in the knowledge of his cousin Shri Sandeep Sood, then he informed him that said car was taken by his son Sidharath Sood along with his friends namely Sahil Sood and Mukesh Sharma i.e. the petitioners in the present petitions, as the second key of his car was lying with his cousin Sandeep Sood and on account of lack of communication, he had thought that his car was stolen. 4. He has further stated that after knowing the recovery and above stated fact, he had again approached the police but as the offence was not compoundable, therefore, police had expressed inability to compound the matter and thus he has prayed for quashing of FIR and any proceedings thereto against the petitioners. He has stated that compromise so arrived at is out of his free will and consent and without any threat, pressure or coercion. 5. He has stated that compromise so arrived at is out of his free will and consent and without any threat, pressure or coercion. 5. It is contended on behalf of respondent-State that accused is 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.PC. 6. 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.PC, 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.PC 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. 7. The Apex Court, in case Narinder Singh and Ors. Vs. 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. 7. The Apex Court, in case Narinder Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab and Ors., (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. 8. No doubt Section 120-B of IPC is not compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C. However, as explained by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh’s and Narinder Singh’s cases supra, power of High Court under Section 482 CrPC is not inhibited by the provisions of Section 320 CrPC and FIR as well as criminal proceedings can be quashed by exercising inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC, if warranted in given facts and circumstances of the case for ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court, even in those cases which are not compoundable where parties have settled the matter between themselves. 9. In present case, on account of lack of communication, the FIR has been lodged against the petitioners in a very hasteful manner, whereas the alleged car had never been stolen away by anyone, rather the same had been taken away by nephew of complainant along with his friends as second key was lying in the custody of cousin of complainant. Therefore, in these facts and circumstances, I find that it is a fit case to exercise power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and further even otherwise if criminal proceedings are allowed to continue, no fruitful purpose is going to be served. 10. Further, offence in question does not fall in the category of offences prohibited for compounding in terms of the pronouncements of the Apex Court by exercising power under Section 482 of the CrPC. 11. 10. Further, offence in question does not fall in the category of offences prohibited for compounding in terms of the pronouncements of the Apex Court by exercising power under Section 482 of the CrPC. 11. Keeping in view nature and gravity of offence and considering facts and circumstances of the case in entirety, I am of the opinion that present petitions deserve to be allowed for ends of justice and the same are allowed accordingly and FIR No.50 of 2018, dated 2.5.2018 registered under Sections 379 and 120-B read with Section 34 IPC at Police Station, East Shimla, District Shimla, H.P. is quashed. Consequent to quashing of FIR, criminal proceedings, if any, initiated against accused in pursuance thereto, are also quashed. 12. Petition stands disposed of in above terms.