Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 834 (HP)

Shankar Singh v. State of H. P.

2025-04-28

VIRENDER SINGH

body2025
JUDGMENT : (Virender Singh, J.) The petitioner has filed the present petition, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as ‘the B.N.S.S.’) for quashing of FIR No.58 of 2023, dated 07.06.2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the FIR in question’), registered under Sections 307, 506 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’) and Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act, 1969, with Police Station, Shahpur, District Kangra, H.P., as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P., (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’). 2. Relief, as claimed for, has been sought on the ground that the matter has been compromised between the petitioner and respondent No. 2, in order to maintain their cordial relations. 3. The terms and conditions of the compromise have been reduced into writing, which have been annexed with the petition, as Annexure P-2. 4. On all these submissions, a prayer to allow the present petition, by quashing the FIR in question, as well as, proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial Court, has been made. 5. When put to notice, respondent No. 1 has filed the status report, disclosing therein, the manner, in which, the FIR in question has been registered and criminal machinery swung into motion. 6. It is the further case of respondent No.1 that after completion of investigation, report under Section 173(2) of Cr. P.C. has been filed. Cognizance has been taken by the learned trial Court and the matter is stated to be pending adjudication, before the learned trial Court. 7. Today, respondent No. 2, who, had put criminal machinery into motion, has appeared in Court and has made a statement, on oath, about the manner, in which, he has lodged the FIR in question and factum of the compromise, which has been effected, between the parties, in order to maintain cordial relations, between him and the petitioner. According to him, on 06.06.2023, an incident had taken place and the petitioner had fired a shot, but in the said incident, respondent No.2 had not sustained any injury. 8. Lastly, respondent No. 2, in unequivocal terms, has deposed that now with the intervention of the respectables of the society, the matter has been compromised between them. According to him, on 06.06.2023, an incident had taken place and the petitioner had fired a shot, but in the said incident, respondent No.2 had not sustained any injury. 8. Lastly, respondent No. 2, in unequivocal terms, has deposed that now with the intervention of the respectables of the society, the matter has been compromised between them. He has also stated that he has no objection, in case, the present petition is allowed and the FIR in question and the proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial Court, are quashed. 9. Similar type of statement has also been made by the petitioner. 10. Heard. 11. From the facts, as mentioned in the petition, as well as, the factual position, as narrated in the status report, this Court is of the view that the matter has now been compromised, between the parties. 12. The person, who had put the criminal machinery into motion, by lodging FIR in question, when, appeared before this Court, has stated that the compromise has been effected between the parties. He has no objection, in case, the present petition is allowed. 13. In view of the compromise deed, Annexure P-2, which bears the signatures of petitioner and respondent No. 2, respondent No.2 does not want to proceed further with the case and has specifically stated that he has no objection, in case, the present petition is allowed and the FIR in question, as well as, proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial Court, are quashed. 14. Although the present case has been registered under the provisions of Section 307 of IPC, however, in view of the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Madhya Pradesh versus Laxmi Narayan and others , reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688 the same can be compounded, as no injury has been inflicted in this case. Relevant paragraph-15 of the judgment is reproduced as under:- “15. Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of this Court on the point, referred to hereinabove, it is observed and held as under: 15.1. Relevant paragraph-15 of the judgment is reproduced as under:- “15. Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of this Court on the point, referred to hereinabove, it is observed and held as under: 15.1. That the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves; 15.2. Such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society; 15.3. similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender; 15.4. Offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act etc. would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal proceedings for the offence under Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act etc. which have a serious impact on the society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code, on the ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst themselves. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to framing the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc. However, such an exercise by the High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and the charge sheet is filed/charge is framed and/or during the trial. Such exercise is not permissible when the matter is still under investigation. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in paragraphs 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in the case of Narinder Singh should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove; 15.5. While exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non-compoundable offences, which are private in nature and do not have a serious impart on society, on the ground that there is a settlement/compromise between the victim and the offender, the High Court is required to consider the antecedents of the accused; the conduct of the accused, namely, whether the accused was absconding and why he was absconding, how he had managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise etc.” 15. The primary purpose of law is to maintain peace in the society and when, the parties to the lis, i.e. petitioner and respondent No. 2, have buried their disputes and compromised the matter, then, the continuation of the criminal proceedings, arising out of the FIR in question, lodged by respondent No. 2, would certainly amount to abuse of the process of law. 16. Acceptance of the compromise will help the parties to live peacefully in the society and also save the precious judicial time of the learned trial Court, as the learned trial Court will be in a position to devote such time, for deciding some other serious disputes, pending before it. 17. When, respondent No. 2 has exonerated the petitioner from the allegations, in that eventuality, chances of success of the prosecution case, against the petitioner, are not so bright, as such, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the proceedings alive. 18. 17. When, respondent No. 2 has exonerated the petitioner from the allegations, in that eventuality, chances of success of the prosecution case, against the petitioner, are not so bright, as such, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the proceedings alive. 18. Considering all these facts, the petition is allowed and FIR No.58/2023, dated 07.06.2023, registered with Police Station Shahpur, District Kangra, H.P., under Sections 307, 506 of IPC and Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act, 1969 and proceedings resultant thereto, which are pending before the learned trial Court, in Session Trial No.98 of 2024, are ordered to be quashed. 19. The statements, so recorded, and the compromise deed, Annexure P-2, be read as part of the judgment. 20. The present petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.