Bhawan Kumar vs State Of H.P. & Others

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J

Petitioner is one of the accused persons in FIR No.35/2022, dated 25.02.2022 registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Manpura, Police District Baddi, District Solan, H.P. He has invoked Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the said FIR and the consequent judicial proceedings.

Respondent No.1 has filed the status report and also produced the record of the case.

Gist of the prosecution case is that:- One M/S U.S. Industries located at Khasra No.153, Village Theda Lodhi Majra Road, Tehsil Baddi, District Solan, H.P. needed No Objection Certificates of Himachal Pradesh State Pollution Control Board as well as of Himachal Pradesh Fire Department. These certificates were required by the company to avail Government subsidy. Petitioner and one Akash Shivastva (proforma respondent No.3) projected themselves as consultants and ensured providing the required No Objection Certificates to the company. According to respondent No.1, these two accused persons provided the required certificates to M/S U.S. Industries. These documents turned out to be forged & fake, hence, complaint was lodged by M/S U.S. Industries. The investigation carried out in the matter implicated the petitioner as well as Akash Shivastva and held them responsible for forging the documents. According to the status report, the laptops recovered from these two accused persons contained copies of forged documents supplied to M/S U.S. Industries. According to the investigating agency, M/S U.S. Industries, in lieu of the documents provided to it by the aforesaid two accused persons, had deposited Rs.1,60,000/- in the account of the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the amount received by the petitioner had been returned by him through cheque to M/S U.S. Industries. Be that as it may. The prayer for quashing of the FIR and consequent judicial proceedings has been made on the strength of a compromise deed stated to have been executed on 01.01.2023 (Annexure P/2) between the petitioner and respondent No.2-Umesh Singh (care taker of M/S U.S. Industries).

The law laid down in respect of exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing or for refusing to quash the FIR and resultant proceedings on the basis of compromise effected by the parties in (2012) 10 SCC 303 titled Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab; (2014) 6 SCC 466 titled Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab; (2017) 9 SCC 641 titled as Parbatbhai Aahir vs. State of Gujarat, has been noticed again by Hon’ble Apex Court in (2019) 5 SCC 688 , titled as State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan with following observations:-

“ 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. 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 (supra) 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.”

The petitioner is facing serious allegations of having been involved in offences for providing forged No Objection Certificates of Himachal Pradesh Pollution Control Board and of Himachal Pradesh Fire Department to respondent No.2. He is accused in the aforesaid FIR registered on 25.02.2022 for commission of offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 467 provides for a punishment with imprisonment of life or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years. In the face of status report filed by respondent No.1, offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioner cannot be said to be personal offences. The allegations put forth against the petitioner are very serious and against the public at large. Hence, the instant petition seeking quashing of the FIR & consequent judicial proceedings on the strength of compromise cannot be allowed. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. All pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

It is made clear that observations made above are only for the purpose of adjudication of instant petition and shall not be construed as an opinion on the merits of the matter. Learned Trial Court shall decide the matter without being influenced by any of the observations made hereinabove.