Surjeet Thakur & Another vs State Of H.P. & Another

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 petitioners

Surjeet Thakur and Ruchi Kumari, on the basis of compromise deed (Annexure P-2) arrived at between them and respondent No.2, for quashing of

FIR No.0021 of 2020 dated 23.02.2020, registered in Police Station, Anni, District Kullu, H.P., under Sections 353 and 332 read with Section 34 of the

Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’) and subsequent proceedings arising thereto.

Surjeet Thakur, Ruchi Kumari-petitioners and Harsh Goswami-respondent No.2, are present in person in the Court today, who have been identified

by their respective learned counsel. Statements of respondent No.2-Harsh Goswami as well as petitioners-Surjeet Thakur and Ruchi Kumari, on oath,

have been recorded today in the Court.

In his statement complainant-respondent No.2 Harsh Goswami has stated that the incident had happened in the moving bus, on account of

misunderstanding and miscommunication, as he and petitioners-accused persons were not able to hear each other clearly, which had resulted into

lodging of FIR No.0021 of 2020 dated 23.02.2020, under Sections 353 and 332 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), in Police Station

Anni, District Kullu, H.P., against the petitioners.

He has further stated that later on, they had met again and discussed the matter and found that incident had happened, on account of

misunderstanding and miscommunication and, therefore, they have compromised the matter and, as such, he does not want to continue criminal

proceedings against the petitioners. He has further stated that in the aforesaid facts and circumstances and for compromise entered between them, he

wants to withdraw the complaint filed by him and prays for quashing of FIR as well as criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners in

consequence thereto. He has further stated that he has signed the compromise and has deposed in this Court, out of his free will, consent and without

any external pressure, coercion or threat of any kind.

In their statements, petitioners Surjeet Thakur and Ruchi Kumari have endorsed the statement made by respondent No.2-Harsh Goswami. They

have further stated that they have entered into a compromise without any pressure and have signed the same voluntarily. They have further stated

that they have deposed in this Court, out of their free will, consent and without any external pressure, coercion or threat of any kind.

It is contended on behalf of respondent No.1-State that petitioners-accused are 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 e,xplaining 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 641

summarizing 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.

No doubt Sections 353 and 332 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, Parbhatbhai Aahir’s case 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 CrPC, 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.

Now, the matter has been amicably settled between the private parties on the basis of compromise arrived at between them, as such, I am of the

considered view that no fruitful purpose shall be served to continue the proceedings against petitioners-accused Surjeet Thakur and Ruchi Kumari.

Offences in question, for material on record, do not fall in the category of offence termed to be prohibited, in 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.0021 of 2020 dated 23.02.2020, registered in

Police Station, Anni, District Kullu, H.P., is quashed. Consequent to quashing of FIR, criminal proceedings, if any, initiated against petitioners-accused

persons in pursuance thereto, are also quashed.

Petition stands disposed of in above terms.

Copy Dasti on usual terms.