Ram Kumar & Another vs State Of Himachal Pradesh

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, for quashing of FIR No.33 of 2016, dated 17.07.2016, registered in Police Station, Pangi, District Chamba, H.P., under Sections 452, 342, 504, 506 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code (herein after referred to as 'IPC').

2 This FIR has been registered against petitioner No.1 Ram Kumar at the instance of his father-complaiant, who is petitioner No.2 herein, and subsequent proceedings arising thereto.

3 The petition has been preferred on the basis of amicable settlement between the complainant and accused, who are none-else, but the father and son.

As per FIR placed on record, petitioner No.1 had beaten his father, mother and one Ritu Kumari, a domestic helper engaged by father of petitioner No.1, on the objection raised by mother of accused against storing of grass by accused on the grass already kept by his parents.

After completion of investigation, challan was put in Court in 2016. It is further submitted that despite presentation of challan in Court, proceedings could not be progressed further for the reason that immediately thereafter a compromise, entered amongst petitioners, was produced before the trial Court i.e. learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamba, on 26.10.2016 and thereafter, the matter is pending considering before trial Court and till date, no decision has been taken by the trial Court.

It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioners that petitioner No.1 had been engaged as Para-teacher in the Education Department of Himachal Pradesh and now his services have been regularized, but, for confirmation thereof, his antecedents report from police is warranted and because of pendency of present criminal case, wherein a written compromise has also been produced by complainant/petitioner No.2 before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, there is possibility of adverse report by police and therefore, petitioner has been constrained to file present petition for compounding the case and quashing of FIR, as offence under Section 452 IPC is not compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C.

A compromise arrived at between the parties has been placed on record as Annexure P1, wherein it is stated that petitioners belong to one and same family and petitioner No.1 is son of petitioner No.2 and petitioner No.1 has assured petitioner No.2 not to repeat such incident in future with petitioner No.2 and other family members and not to disturb the peace of family. It is also stated in compromise that now petitioner No.2 has no grudge against petitioner No.1 and he is not interested to continue the criminal proceedings against petitioner No.1.

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 Parbhathbhai Bhimsinghbhai Karmur and others vs. State of Gujarat and another, (2017) 9 SCC 641summarizing the board 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.

12 No doubt Sections 452 of IPC is not compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C. However, as explained by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh's, Narinder Singh's, Parbhatbhai 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.P.C, 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.

Keeping in view nature and gravity of offence and considering facts and circumstances of the case in entirety, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for the ends of justice and present petition deserves to be allowed accordingly and FIR No.33 of 2016 dated 17.07.2016, registered at Police Station, Pangi, District Chamba, H.P., is quashed. Consequent to quashing of FIR, criminal proceedings initiated against petitioner No.1/accused in pursuance thereto, are also quashed.

Petition stands disposed of in above terms, so also pending application(s), if any. Copy Dasti.