Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1648 (HP)

Vinod Kumar Lakharwal v. State Of Hp

2019-11-05

VIVEK SINGH THAKUR

body2019
JUDGMENT Vivek Singh Thakur, J. - Petitioner Vinod Kumar Lakharwal has filed Cr.MMO No. 268 of 2019 for quashing of proceedings in private complaint bearing Case No. 25/2017, titled as Vinod Kumar Lakharwal Vs. Stae of HP and another pending before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P., initiated on the complaint filed by respondent No.2 Nek Ram, whereas petition Cr.MMO No. 656 of 2019 has been filed by petitioners Nek Ram and Sanjeev Kumar (father and son) against State of H.P. and another for quashing of FIR No. 82 of 2016 dated 24.3.2016, under Sections 341, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC registered at Police Station, Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P., and criminal proceedings arising thereto pending before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1 Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P., bearing Case No. 73/2016, titled as State of H.P. Vs. Nek Ram. 2. Both criminal cases are cross-cases, arising out of an incident of road-rage, wherein both of the parties have quarreled with each other and on the basis of complaint registered by Vinod Kumar Lakharwal, criminal proceedings have been initiated against Nek Ram and Sanjeev Kumar, whereas on the basis of complaint filed by Nek Ram, criminal proceedings have been initiated against Vinod Kumar Lakharwal. 3. On 12.9.2019 parties were present in person and they were duly identified by their respective Advocates. On that day, their statements on oath were also recorded. 4. In his statement, Mr. Vinod Kumar Lakharwal has stated that respondent No.2, Nek Ram has filed a private complainant against him due to road-rage incident and he has also registered FIR No. 82 of 2016 dated 24.3.2016 in Police Station, Sarkaghat against respondent No.2 (Nek Ram) and his son Sanjeev Kumar and now the matter stands amicably settled between them and therefore, he does not want to pursue the matter further and wants to withdraw the FIR lodged by him against respondent No.2, Nek Ram. He has also categorically stated that he has deposed in the Court out of his free will, consent and without any external pressure, coercion or threat of any kind. 4 Mr. Nek Ram, in his statement has stated that a private complaint was lodged by him against Vinod Kumar Lakharwal and now he intends to compromise the matter. He has also categorically stated that he has deposed in the Court out of his free will, consent and without any external pressure, coercion or threat of any kind. 4 Mr. Nek Ram, in his statement has stated that a private complaint was lodged by him against Vinod Kumar Lakharwal and now he intends to compromise the matter. He has further stated that FIR was also lodged against him by Vinod Kumar Lakharwal and criminal proceedings are pending before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sarkaghat and now they intend to compromise the matter and want to live with peace and harmony. He has also stated that both of them have decided to close both the matters and want to withdraw the cases registered against each other. He has further stated that he has deposed in the Court out of his free will, consent and also without any fear, threat, pressure or coercion. 5. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar in his statement has endorsed the statement of Vinod Kumar Lakharwaal and his father Nek Ram. 6. It is contended on behalf of respondent-State that accused are not entitled to invoke inherent jurisdiction of this Court to exercise its power keeping in view the nature of offence committed by petitioner(s). 6. Three Judges Bench of the Apex Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Ors., (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. 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 Parbatbhai Aahir alias Parbathbhai Bhimsinghbhai Karmur and others Vs. State of Gujarat and another, (2017) 9 SCC 641 summarizing the broad principles regarding inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has recognized that these powers are not inhibited by provisions of Section 320 Cr.P.C. 8. The Apex Court in case Narinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and others, (2014) 6 SCC 466 and also in State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others, (2019) 5 SCC 688 has summed 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. 9. 9. No doubt Section 506 of IPC is not compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C., however, as explained by Hon''ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh''s, Narinder Singh''s, Parbatbhai Aahir''s and Laxmi Narayan''s cases supra, power of High Court under Section 482 Cr.PC is not inhibited by the provisions of Section 320 Cr.P.C. and FIR as well as criminal proceedings can be quashed by exercising inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 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. 10. Keeping in view the fact that complainants (in both the cases) have appeared and endorsed the compromise arrived at between them, 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. 11. In Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab, (2008) 4 SCC 582 the Hon''ble Supreme Court emphasized and advised that in the matter of compromise in criminal proceedings, keeping in view of nature of this case, to save the time of the Court for utilizing to decide more effective and meaningful litigation, a commonsense approach, based on ground realities and bereft of the technicalities of law, should be applied. 12. Further, offences in question as alleged do 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 Cr.P.C. In view of statements of complainants (in both the cases) recorded on oath in this Court, prayer made in both the petitions can be allowed. 13. Keeping in view nature and gravity of offences and considering facts and circumstances of the case in entirety, I am of the opinion that both petitions deserve to be allowed for ends of justice and the same are allowed. Accordingly, FIR No.82 of 2016 dated 24.3.2016 registered at Police Station, Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P. is quashed. Consequent to quashing of FIR, criminal proceedings i.e. Case No. 73/2016, titled as State Vs. Nek Ram pending before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P are also quashed. And criminal proceedings i.e. Criminal Case No. 25/2017, titled as Nek Ram Vs. Consequent to quashing of FIR, criminal proceedings i.e. Case No. 73/2016, titled as State Vs. Nek Ram pending before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P are also quashed. And criminal proceedings i.e. Criminal Case No. 25/2017, titled as Nek Ram Vs. Vinod Lakharwal pending before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P. are also quashed. Petitions stand disposed of in above terms, so also pending application, if any.