Narayan Singh vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others

Vivek Singh Thakur, J

The instant petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.PC’), has been filed by petitioner

Narayan Singh, on the basis of compromise deed (Annexure P-2) arrived at between him and respondent No. 2 Bobby, for quashing of FIR No. No.

10 of 2020, dated 13.4.2020, registered in Police Station Deha, District Shimla.H.P, under Sections 308, 336, 338, 201 of the Indian Penal Code (in

short ‘IPC’) and Section 30 of Arms Act and consequent proceedings arising thereto.

Status report has been filed by respondent No.1-State, wherein details of the incident have been narrated with further submission that challan has

been presented in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Theog on 11.9.2020, wherein next date of hearing is fixed for 27.5.2022.

Petitioner and respondent No. 2 are present in the Court today. They have been duly identified by Ms. Aruna Chauhan, Advocate. Their

statements, on oath, have been recorded separately.

Complainant in his statement has stated that he was complainant and injured in the present case. After the incident, he had lodged the FIR, as he

was not knowing the person who had fired the gunshot and reason for that. He has further stated that later-on petitioner Narayan Singh had

approached him and had disclosed that gun shot was fired by him for protecting the crop from monkeys, but accidently pallets of gunshot had injured

him. He has further stated that from the knowledge gathered by him and explanation given by the petitioner, he is convinced that it was an accident

and, therefore, he has decided not to pursue the criminal proceedings against the petitioner and thus he has compromised the matter with the

accused/petitioner. Compromise deed (Annexure P-2) has been signed by him and the petitioner in presence of the witnesses. An affidavit Annexure

P-3 has also been sworn by him in furtherance to the compromise. He further prays that he be permitted to withdraw the complaint for quashing the

FIR and for closing the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner in furtherance to the complaint lodged by him. He has further stated that he

has compromised the matter and deposed in Court out of free will, consent and without any threat, coercion or external pressure.

In his statement, petitioner/accused Narayan Singh has endorsed the statement of the complainant to be true and correct. He has also undertaken to

be more careful in future. He has further stated that throughout his life, no other such incident had occurred on account of his negligence or otherwise.

He has further stated that his deposition is out of his free will, consent and without threat or external pressure.

It is contended on behalf of respondent No.1-State that petitioner-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.P.C.

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.

The Apex Court in Parbatbhai Aahir alias Parbatbhai 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.

The Apex Court in case Narinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and others reported in (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.

No doubt Sections 308, 336 and 201 of IPC are 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 CrPC and FIR as well as criminal proceedings can be quashed by exercising inherent

powers under Section 482 Cr.PC, 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.

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.

Offences in question, for material on record, do not fall in the category of offence termed to be prohibited, in terms of the pronouncements of

Apex Court, to be compounded, exercising power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

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. 10 of 2020 dated 13.4.2020, registered in Police

Station, Deha, District Shimla, H.P is quashed. Consequent to quashing of FIR, criminal proceedings pending/ initiated against petitioner-accused in

pursuance thereto, are also quashed.

Petition stands disposed of in above terms.

Petitioner is permitted to produce a copy of this judgment, downloaded from the web-page of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, before the

authorities concerned, and the said authorities shall not insist for production of a certified copy but, if required, may verify it from Website of the High

Court.