Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 89 (HP)

Hemant Suri v. State of H. P.

2019-01-08

VIVEK SINGH THAKUR

body2019
JUDGMENT : Vivek Singh Thakur, J. Present petition has been filed for quashing of FIR No. 223 of 2017 dated 11.10.2017 registered under Sections 420, 465, 467 and 471 of Indian Penal Code and Section 66 of Information Technology Act, 2000 at P.S. Sadar Nalagarh, District Solan H.P., and criminal proceedings if initiated in pursuance thereto, on the basis of compromise, arrived at between petitioners-accused and complainant-respondent No. 2. 2. Petitioner No.2/accused and respondent No. 2- complainant are present in Court, who are duly identified by their respective counsel. Their statements on oath have also been recorded. 3. Respondent No. 2, complainant, present in person in Court today, endorses compromise, (Annexure P2) and in his statement, recorded on oath in this Court, has not only reiterated signing of the compromise by him and petitioner No.2/accused with free consent and will without any coercion and pressure but also deposed to the effect that complainant, he is partner of M/s C.B. Healthcare Messa Tibba and they have supplied the medicines worth Rs. 2.67 crores approximately to M/s Nava Healthcare Private Limited and all the petitioners are partners of the said firm. He has stated that in order to avoid the payment, petitioners had manufactured an e-mail purported to be sent by and on behalf of M/s C.B. Healthcare for destroying the medicines of Rs.2.67 crores and after knowing the said fact, he had lodged the FIR against all partners of M/s Nava Healthcare Private Limited. 4. He has further stated basically both the parties are businessmen and now the matter stands amicably settled between us and in lieu of payment due towards M/s C.B. Healthcare, petitioners had issued cheques of different dates and all those cheques, except three, have been encashed by them and they have also entered into the compromise. He has further stated that there were certain complaints against them also filed by M/s Nava Healthcare Private Limited and now they have entered into compromise and resolved the dispute amicably and copy of this compromise has also been placed on record with this petition and according to compromise, parties have agreed to withdraw the complaints filed by it against the another and has sought permission to compound the matter and prays for quashing of FIR and consequential proceedings initiated in pursuant thereto. 5. 5. The petitioner No.2/accused also, in his statement, by endorsing the deposition of respondent No.2, has stated that they have also withdrawn the complaint filed by them against M/s C.B. Healthcare and admitted his signatures on photocopy of compromised placed on record, as party of second party out of his free will and consent and also without any threat, coercion or pressure etc. and prayed for disposal of present petition in terms of compromise. 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. The Apex Court, in case Narinder Singh 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. 8. 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. 9. No doubt Sections 467 and 471 of IPC are 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 Cr.PC 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. 10. In present case, complainant and accused have appeared and by endorsing the compromise filed with petitioner, duly signed by them, with free consent and will without any coercion or threat, stated that complaint filed by the petitioner against the complainant has also withdrawn by the petitioners. Since both the parties are businessmen and some of the cheques, issued by petitioners in lieu of payment due towards the complainant, have been encahsed, 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. 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. 12. 11. 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. 12. 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 petition deserves to be allowed for ends of justice and the same is allowed accordingly and FIR No.223 of 2017 dated 11.10.2017, registered under Sections 420, 465, 467, 471 of Indian Penal Code and Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 at Police Station, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. is quashed. Consequent to quashing of FIR, criminal proceedings if initiated against accused in pursuance thereto, are also quashed. 13. Petition stands disposed of in above terms.