Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 878 (HP)

Pradeep Kumar v. State of H. P.

2022-12-26

SATYEN VAIDYA

body2022
JUDGMENT : Satyen Vaidya, J. Both these petitions are being decided by a common order for the reason that both these petitions arise from the same judgment of conviction recorded by learned Trial Court. Two different sets of convicted persons had preferred two separate appeals before the learned Appellate Court and therefore, on the dismissal of such appeals, two separate revision petitions came to be filed before this Court. 2. Petitioners were convicted for offences under Sections 325, 323 and 341 of Indian Penal Code by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No. 3, Hamirpur, H.P., vide judgment dated 31.07.2012. The maximum sentence imposed upon each of them is to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for commission of offence under Section 325 of IPC. Two sets of appeal preferred by the petitioners herein were dismissed by learned Appellate Court on 21.12.2012. Thereafter, these revision petitions were filed before this Court and were pending adjudication 3. Petitioners have approached the Court, now by way of Cr.MP. No. 3752 of 2022 in Cr.R. No. 18 of 2013 and Cr.MP No. 3753 of 2022 in Cr.R. No. 19 of 2013, with a prayer to place on record compromise effected between the parties and to quash FIR No. 288 of 2006 and all consequential criminal proceedings arising therefrom including the judgment of conviction as noticed above. 4. Petitioners as well as victims/complainants namely Sanjay Kumar, Subhash Chand and Rajinder Kumar, are present in the Court today. A joint statement of victims/complainants has been recorded. They have stated that the matter stands compromised with the petitioners, vide compromise deed dated 03.11.2022, a copy of which has been placed on record as Annexure A-1. It has been submitted by them that the petitioners have shown remorse and repentance and in view of such conduct of petitioners and also the fact that they have been engaged in the prosecution/litigation for the last about sixteen years, the victims/complainants have decided to put an end to the litigation with a purpose to maintain peace in future. 5. The joint statement of all the petitioners in Cr.R. No. 18 and 19 of 2013 has also been recorded. They have endorsed the facts narrated by the victims/complainants in their statement to be correct. They have further verified the contents of compromise Annexure A-1 and have undertaken to abide by its terms in future with a purpose to maintain peace. 6. They have endorsed the facts narrated by the victims/complainants in their statement to be correct. They have further verified the contents of compromise Annexure A-1 and have undertaken to abide by its terms in future with a purpose to maintain peace. 6. The facts of the case reveal that the injuries suffered by the victims/complainants were personal to them and also were private in nature. It was a private dispute between the parties and the manner in which the incident had occurred cannot be said to have depraving effect on the society at large. 7. The parties have stated that they belong to the same area and with the intervention of relatives and common friends they have decided to put an end to all their past disputes. 8. The nature of offences involved in the instant case cannot be termed to be very heinous offences. The final outcome of these petitions may not have any adverse effect on the interest of society as a whole. On the other hand, the steps taken by the parties should be welcomed as their efforts will be helpful in maintaining peace and harmony in the society. 9. In non-heinous offences or where the offences are of private nature, the criminal proceedings can be annulled irrespective of the fact that the trial has concluded or appeal stands dismissed against conviction. It has been so held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide judgment dated 29.09.2021 passed in Criminal Appeals No.1489 and 1488 of 2012. The relevant extract from the aforesaid judgment can be gainfully reproduced as under:- “13. It appears to us that criminal proceedings involving non-heinous offences or where the offences are predominantly of a private nature, can be annulled irrespective of the fact that trial has already been concluded or appeal stands dismissed against conviction. Handing out punishment is not the sole form of delivering justice. Societal method of applying laws evenly is always subject to lawful exceptions. It goes without saying, that the cases where compromise is struck post conviction, the High Court ought to exercise such discretion with rectitude, keeping in view the circumstances surrounding the incident, the fashion in which the compromise has been arrived at, and with due regard to the nature and seriousness of the offence, besides the conduct of the accused, before and after the incidence. The touchstone for exercising the extraordinary power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. would be to secure the ends of justice. There can be no hard and fast line constricting the power of the High Court to do substantial justice. A restrictive construction of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may lead to rigid or specious justice, which in the given facts and circumstances of a case, may rather lead to grave injustice. On the other hand, in cases where heinous offences have been proved against perpetrators, no such benefit ought to be extended, as cautiously observed by this Court in Narinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Ors. (2014) 6 SCC 466 and State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan & Ors. (2019) 5 SCC 688 . 14. In other words, grave or serious offences or offences which involve moral turpitude or have a harmful effect on the social and moral fabric of the society or involve matters concerning public policy, cannot be construed betwixt two individuals or groups only, for such offences have the potential to impact the society at large. Effacing abominable offences through quashing process would not only send a wrong signal to the community but may also accord an undue benefit to unscrupulous habitual or professional offenders, who can secure a ‘settlement’ through duress, threats, social boycotts, bribes or other dubious means. It is well said that “let no guilty man escape, if it can be avoided.” 10. Reverting to the facts of the case, I am of considered view that the grant of prayer made by way of Cr.MP. No. 3752 of 2022 and Cr.MP No. 3753 of 2022 will be in consonance with the mandate of law as expounded by Hon’ble Supreme Court in above referred judgment. 11. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, both the petitions are allowed. FIR No 288 of 2006, dated 16.08.2006, is ordered to be quashed. Accordingly, judgment of conviction and sentence order dated 31.07.2012, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No. 3, Hamirpur, H.P. in Case No.85-II of 2006 and also the judgment dated 21.12.2012, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Hamirpur, H.P., in Criminal Appeals No. 27 and 28 of 2012, are set aside. Petitioners in both the petitions are acquitted of all the charges.