Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 127 (HP)

Atish Thakur 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 of FIR No. 394 of 2016, dated 26th December, 2016, registered under Sections 325, 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) at Police Station Sadar, District Shimla, H.P., and criminal proceedings initiated in pursuance thereto, on the basis of compromise, copy whereof has been placed on record, arrived at between petitioners-accused and complainant/respondents No. 2 and 3. 2. Respondents No. 2 and 3, present in person in Court, duly identified by counsel, endorse compromise and in their statement, recorded on oath in this Court, have not only reiterated signing of the compromise by them with petitioners-accused with free consent and will, without any coercion and pressure, but, also deposed to the effect that present F.I.R. was lodged by them against the petitioners, on account of quarrel taken place during the get together of students, belonging to Theog area, studying in Shimla, wherein they were also invited and due to misunderstanding, quarrel had taken place, which stands clarified with the interference of the parents and with common understanding of all persons involved in the incident. It is further stated that they have compromised the matter and now they are in good talking terms and developed good relations and their deposing in this Court is out of free will and consent without any coercion, pressure and threat etc. They do not want to continue with the criminal proceedings initiated against the accused-petitioners and present case may be permitted to be compounded by quashing of the present F.I.R. lodged by them. 3. The petitioners in their statements on oath recorded separately, have also realized their mistake and have endorsed the compromise arrived at between the parties and further stated that the incident had taken place in the heat of passion. They have realized that it could have been avoided. But unfortunately, it had happened. Earlier to the incident, the complainant/respondents No.2 and 3 were their friends and they are now again friends and are in good talking terms with each other. They had requested the complainant for compromising the matter, for which they agreed. They have realized that it could have been avoided. But unfortunately, it had happened. Earlier to the incident, the complainant/respondents No.2 and 3 were their friends and they are now again friends and are in good talking terms with each other. They had requested the complainant for compromising the matter, for which they agreed. They have endorsed the statements of respondents No.2 and 3 and also signing the compromise Annexure P-2 as first party out of their free will and consent without any coercion, pressure and threat. They have also undertaken not to repeat such an incident again in future. 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. 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, respondents No.2 and 3 have also appeared in person in this Court and their statements on oath, as discussed in paras 2 and 3 supra, have also been recorded in this Court. They have also expressed no objection, in compounding the offences, rather they have compromised the matter with petitioners-accused. 8. Offences in question, for material on record, 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 respondents No.2 and 3 and petitioners, recorded on oath in this Court, it is evident that incident had happened in heat of passion during student life of parties and petitioners are not hard core criminals and now have settled their life as good citizens. 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. 394 of 2016, dated 26th December, 2016, registered under Sections 325, 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Sadar, District Shimla, H.P is quashed. Consequent to quashing of FIR, criminal proceedings, stated to be pending in the Court of Ld.JMIC-VII, Shimla also stands quashed. 10. Petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.