Himachal Pradesh High Court
Date Of Decision: 5.9.2024 vs State Of Punjab And Another (2014)6 … on 7 September, 2024
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
2024:HHC:8082
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
.
Criminal Revision No.314 of 2019
Date of Decision: 5.9.2024
_____________________________________________________________________
Mohinder Singh and Anr.
.........Petitioners
State of Himachal Pradesh
.......Respondent
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?
For the Petitioners: Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.
Verma, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi
Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General.
___________________________________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)
Instant criminal revision petition, lays challenge to judgment
dated 18.6.2019, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II,
Kangra at Dharamshala (camp at Jawali) in Criminal Appeal No. 26-
K/X/14/2011, affirming/modifying the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 27/28.4.2011, titled State v. Mohinder Singh and Anr.,
passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (I), Kangra, District
Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, in Criminal Challan No. 62-II/2005, whereby
the learned trial Court while holding the petitioners-accused guilty of their
having committed offence punishable under Section 332 read with Section
34 of IPC, convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment
for a period of six months each and pay fine of Rs. 500/- each.
::: Downloaded on – 07/09/2024 20:29:04 :::CIS
2 2024:HHC:8082
2. Precisely, case of the prosecution, as emerge from the record as
.
well as other material available on record is that complainant Sh. Sanjeev
Kumar, who is a public servant, was performing his duty as a Conductor in
Himachal Road Transport Corporation on the date of the incident. On
24.4.2005, while above named complainant was deputed in the bus bearing
registration No. HP370362 enroute from Maruhn to Pathankot and had
reached a place called Gaggal Chowk, at about 9:05AM, one private bus i.e.
Bhatia Bus Service, bound from Chamunda to Nagrota Suria also reached
on the spot and accused Mohinder, who was the conductor of the private
bus detailed herein above, started misbehaving and quarreling with him on
the issue of time table proclaiming that HRTC should proceed further
immediately as per the time table, but complainant replied that he has two
minutes to stay on the spot. Aforesaid incident of altercation took ugly
turn and allegedly, accused Mohinder started giving beatings to the
complainant. In the meantime, another co-accused Ashok Kumar, who is a
conductor, also reached the spot and started giving beatings to the
complainant. Above named accused allegedly threw the bag of the
complainant on the ground, however complainant was subsequently
rescued by the driver of the bus. On the basis of aforesaid complaint, FIR
Ext.PW6/A, came to be registered against the accused i.e. petitioners
herein. After completion of investigation, police presented challan in the
::: Downloaded on – 07/09/2024 20:29:04 :::CIS
3 2024:HHC:8082
competent court of law, which subsequently on the basis of evidence
.
adduced on record by the prosecution held them guilty as per description
given herein above.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 27/28.4.2011, recorded by the trial
court below, accused preferred an appeal in the court of learned Additional
Sessions Judge-II, Kangra at Dharamshala Himachal Pradesh (camp at
Jawali), which also came to be partly allowed vide judgment dated
18.6.2019, whereby the learned appellate court modified the sentence from
six months to rising of the court. In the aforesaid background, petitioners-
accused have approached this Court by way of instant proceedings, seeking
therein their acquittal after setting aside the judgments of conviction and
order of sentence recorded by the courts below.
4. Vide order dated 19.8.2019, judgment laid challenge in the
instant proceedings, was stayed subject to petitioners’ furnishing personal
bonds and depositing fine amount. Since petitioners-accused complied
with the aforesaid order passed by this Court, same was made absolute.
5. Before case at hand could be heard and decided on its own
merit, petitioners-accused filed CrMP No. 1815 of 2024, under Section 482
CrPC, seeking therein permission to place on record compromise arrived
inter-se parties, whereby they have resolved to settle their dispute amicably
::: Downloaded on – 07/09/2024 20:29:04 :::CIS
4 2024:HHC:8082
inter-se them. In the aforesaid application, applicants while seeking
.
permission to place on record compromise, has further prayed that on
account of compromise arrived inter-se parties, judgment of conviction and
order of sentence recorded by the courts below may be quashed and set
aside.
6. Pursuant to notices issued in the application, respondent-State
has filed reply, wherein prayer made by the petitioners has been opposed
on the ground that petitioners already stand convicted by the competent
court of law. Non-applicant/respondent/State has also filed a separate
appeal against the judgment of learned first appellate court, laying therein
challenge to judgment passed by the learned First Appellate Court, thereby
reducing the sentence from six months to the rising of the court.
7. Though compromise placed on record clearly suggests that
parties have arrived at amicable settlement inter-se them, but this Court
solely with a view to ascertain correctness and genuineness of the
averments contained in the application as well as compromise placed
therewith directed the petitioners to cause presence of the parties.
8. Pursuant to directions issued by this Court, parties have come
present. Complainant Sanjeev Kumar, states on oath that he of his own
volition and without there being any external pressure has entered into
compromise with the petitioners, whereby they have resolved to settle their
::: Downloaded on – 07/09/2024 20:29:04 :::CIS
5 2024:HHC:8082
dispute amicably. He states that since petitioners have already apologized
.
for their misconduct and undertaken note to repeat such act in future
coupled with the fact that they are well known to him, he shall have no
objection in case judgment of conviction and order of sentence recorded by
the courts below are quashed and set-aside. While admitting the contents
of the compromise to be correct, he also admits his signature thereupon.
His statement is taken on record.
9. Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, states
that since petitioners already stand convicted vide judgment of conviction
and order of sentence dated 27/28.4.2011 passed by learned trial court,
present petition deserves dismissal being not maintainable. While referring
to the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Narinder Singh and
others versus State of Punjab and another (2014)6 Supreme Court
Cases 466, Mr. Panwar, further submits that Hon’ble Apex Court in the
aforesaid judgment has categorically held that High Court shall not exercise
power under Section 482 Cr.P.C in those offences where the person stands
convicted.
10. Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, learned counsel representing the
petitioners while placing on record judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court
in Criminal Appeal No.1489 of 2012, titled as Ramgopal and another
versus The State of Madhya Pradesh, states that Hon’ble Apex Court has
::: Downloaded on – 07/09/2024 20:29:04 :::CIS
6 2024:HHC:8082
categorically held that criminal proceedings involving non-heinous offences
.
or where the offences are pre-dominantly of a private nature, can be
annulled irrespective of the fact that trial has already been concluded or
appeal stands dismissed against the conviction.
11. This Court, after having carefully perused the compromise,
which has been duly effected between the parties, sees substantial force in
the prayer having been made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that
offences in the instant case can be compounded.
12. Since the petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C, this
Court deems it fit to consider the present petition in the light of the
judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Narinder Singh and others
versus State of Punjab and another (2014)6 Supreme Court Cases 466,
whereby Hon’ble Apex Court has formulated guidelines for accepting the
settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the
settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings. Perusal
of judgment referred above clearly depicts that in para 29.1, Hon’ble Apex
Court has returned the findings that power conferred under Section 482
of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to
compound the offences under section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under
section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the
criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable,
::: Downloaded on – 07/09/2024 20:29:04 :::CIS
7 2024:HHC:8082
where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However,
.
this power is to be as under:-
29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay
down the following principles by which the High Court would
be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement
between the parties and exercising 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 the criminal proceedings:
29.1 Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be
distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to
compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Nodoubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has
inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even inthose cases which are not compoundable, where the parties
have settled the matter between themselves. However, this
power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution.
29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on
that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is
filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:
(i) ends of justice, or
(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court.
While exercising the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C the
High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid
two objectives.
29.3. Such a power is not be exercised in those prosecutions
which involve 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. Similarly, for offences alleged to have been
committed under special statute like the Prevention of
Corruption Act or the offences committed by Public Servants
::: Downloaded on – 07/09/2024 20:29:04 :::CIS
8 2024:HHC:8082
while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely
on the basis of compromise between the victim and the
.
offender.
29.4. On the other, those criminal cases having
overwhelmingly and pre-dominantly civil character,
particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or
arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes
should be quashed when the parties have resolved their
entire disputes among themselves.
29.5. While exercising its powers, the High Court is to
examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote
and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put the
accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme
injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the
criminal cases.
29.6. Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the
category of heinous and serious offences and therefore is to
be generally treated as crime against the society and not
against the individual alone. 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 proving 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. Medical report in respect
of injuries suffered by the victim can generally be the guiding
factor. On the basis of this prima facie analysis, the High
Court can examine as to whether there is a strong possibility
of conviction or the chances of conviction are remote and
bleak. In the former case it can refuse to accept the
settlement and quash the criminal proceedings whereas in
the later case it would be permissible for the High Court to
accept the plea compounding the offence based on complete
settlement between the parties. At this stage, the Court can
::: Downloaded on – 07/09/2024 20:29:04 :::CIS
9 2024:HHC:8082
also be swayed by the fact that the settlement between the
parties is going to result in harmony between them which
.
may improve their future relationship.
29.7. While deciding whether to exercise its power under
Section 482 of the Code or not, timings of settlement play a
crucial role. Those cases where the settlement is arrived at
immediately after the alleged commission of offence and the
matter is still under investigation, the High Court may be
liberal in accepting the settlement to quash the criminal
proceedings/investigation. It is because of the reason that at
this stage the investigation is still on and even the charge
sheet has not been filed. Likewise, those cases where the
charge is framed but the evidence is yet to start or the
evidence is still at infancy stage, the High Court can show
benevolence in exercising its powers favourably, but after
prima facie assessment of the circumstances/material
mentioned above. On the other hand, where the prosecution
evidence is almost complete or after the conclusion of the
evidence the matter is at the stage of argument, normally the
High Court should refrain from exercising its power under
Section 482 of the Code, as in such cases the trial court
would be in a position to decide the case finally on merits
and to come a conclusion as to whether the offence under
Section 307 IPC is committed or not. Similarly, in those cases
where the conviction is already recorded by the trial court
and the matter is at the appellate stage before the High
Court, mere compromise between the parties would not be a
ground to accept the same resulting in acquittal of the
offender who has already been convicted by the trial court.
Here charge is proved under Section 307 IPC and conviction
is already recorded of a heinous crime and, therefore, there is
no question of sparing a convict found guilty of such a
crime”.
13. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case Gian Singh v.State of Punjab
and anr. (2012) 10 SCC 303 has held that power of the High Court in
quashing of the criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint in exercise of its
::: Downloaded on – 07/09/2024 20:29:04 :::CIS
10 2024:HHC:8082
inherent power is distinct and different from the power of a Criminal Court
.
for compounding offences under Section 320 Cr.PC. Even in the judgment
passed in Narinder Singh’s case, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that
while exercising inherent power under Section 482 Cr.PC the Court must
have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime and its social impact
and it cautioned the Courts not to exercise the power for quashing
proceedings in heinous and serious offences of mental depravity like
murder, rape, dacoity etc. However subsequently, the Hon’ble Apex Court
in Dimpey Gujral and Ors. vs. Union Territory through Administrator,
UT, Chandigarh and Ors. (2013( 11 SCC 497 has also held as under:-
“7. In certain decisions of this Court in view of the settlement
arrived at by the parties, this Court quashed the FIRs though
some of the offences were non-compoundable. A two Judges’Bench of this court doubted the correctness of those decisions.
Learned Judges felt that in those decisions, this court had
permitted compounding of non-compoundable offences. Thesaid issue was, therefore, referred to a larger bench.
The larger Bench in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10
SCC 303 considered the relevant provisions of the Code and
the judgments of this court and concluded as under: (SCC pp.
342-43, para 61)
61. The position that emerges from the above discussion
can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in
quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in
exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and
different from the power given to a criminal court for
compounding the offences under Section 320 of the
Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no
statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord
with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to::: Downloaded on – 07/09/2024 20:29:04 :::CIS
11 2024:HHC:8082
secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the
process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the
.
criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be
exercised where the offender and victim have settled
their dispute would depend on the facts and
circumstances of each case and no category can be
prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the
High Court must have due regard to the nature and
gravity of the crime. Heinous and se serious impact
on society. Similarly, any compromise between the
victim and offender in relation to the offences under
special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the
offences committed by public servants while working in
that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for
quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences.
But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-
dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for
the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences
arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil,
partnership or such like transactions or the offences
arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the
family disputes where the wrong is basically private or
personal in nature and the parties have resolved their
entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may
quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the
compromise between the offender and victim, the
possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and
continuation of criminal case would put accused to
great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice
would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal
case despite full and complete settlement and
compromise with the victim. In other words, the High
Court must consider whether it would be unfair or
contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the
criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal
proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law
despite settlement and compromise between the victim
and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of
justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an
end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in
affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its
::: Downloaded on – 07/09/2024 20:29:04 :::CIS
12 2024:HHC:8082
jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.”
(emphasis supplied)
.
8. In the light of the above observations of this court in Gian
Singh, we feel that this is a case where the continuation of
criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of
law because the alleged offences are not heinous offences
showing extreme depravity nor are they against the society.
They are offences of a personal nature and burying them would
bring about peace and amity between the two sides. In the
circumstances of the case, FIR No. 163 dated 26.10.2006
registered under Section 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 452 and 506
of the IPC at Police Station Sector 3, Chandigarh and all
consequential proceedings arising there from including the final
report presented under Section 173 of the Code and charges
framed by the trial Court are hereby quashed.”
14. Hon’ble Apex Court in its judgment dated 4th October, 2017,
titled as Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and
others versus State of Gujarat and Another, passed in Criminal Appeal
No.1723 of 2017 arising out of SLP(Crl) No.9549 of 2016, reiterated the
principles/ parameters laid down in Narinder Singh’s case supra for
accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings. It would be
profitable to reproduce para No. 13 to 15 of the judgment herein:
“13. The same principle was followed in Central Bureau of
Investigation v. Maninder Singh (2016)1 SCC 389 by a benchof two learned Judges of this Court. In that case, the High
Court had, in the exercise of its inherent power under Section
482 quashed proceedings under Sections 420, 467, 468 and
471 read with Section 120-B of the Penal Code. While allowing
the appeal filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation Mr
Justice Dipak Misra (as the learned Chief Justice then was)
observed that the case involved allegations of forgery of
documents to embezzle the funds of the bank. In such a
situation, the fact that the dispute had been settled with the::: Downloaded on – 07/09/2024 20:29:04 :::CIS
13 2024:HHC:8082bank would not justify a recourse to the power under Section
482:
.
“…In economic offences Court must not only keep in view
that money has been paid to the bank which has been
defrauded but also the society at large. It is not a case ofsimple assault or a theft of a trivial amount; but the
offence with which we are concerned is well planned and
was committed with a deliberate design with an eye of
personal profit regardless of consequence to the society
at large. To quash the proceeding merely on the groundthat the accused has settled the amount with the bank
would be a misplaced sympathy. If the prosecution
against the economic offenders are not allowed to
continue, the entire community is aggrieved.”
14. In a subsequent decision in State of Tamil Nadu v R
Vasanthi Stanley (2016) 1 SCC 376, the court rejected the
submission that the first respondent was a woman “who was
following the command of her husband” and had signed certain
documents without being aware of the nature of the fraud
which was being perpetrated on the bank. Rejecting the
submission, this Court held that:
“… Lack of awareness, knowledge or intent is neither to be
considered nor accepted in economic offences. The
submission assiduously presented on gender leaves us
unimpressed. An offence under the criminal law is anoffence and it does not depend upon the gender of an
accused. True it is, there are certain provisions in Code of
Criminal Procedure relating to exercise of jurisdiction
Under Section 437, etc. therein but that altogether
pertains to a different sphere. A person committing a
murder or getting involved in a financial scam or forgery of
documents, cannot claim discharge or acquittal on the
ground of her gender as that is neither constitutionally nor::: Downloaded on – 07/09/2024 20:29:04 :::CIS
14 2024:HHC:8082statutorily a valid argument. The offence is gender neutral
in this case. We say no more on this score…”
.
“…A grave criminal offence or serious economic offence or
for that matter the offence that has the potentiality to
create a dent in the financial health of the institutions, isnot to be quashed on the ground that there is delay in trial
or the principle that when the matter has been settled it
should be quashed to avoid the load on the system…”
15.The broad principles which emerge from the precedents
on the subject may be summarized in the following
propositions:
(i) Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the
High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any courtor to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not
confer new powers. It only recognizes and preserves
powers which inhere in the High Court;
(ii) The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High
Court to quash a First Information Report or acriminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement
has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is
not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the
purpose of compounding an offence. While compoundingan offence, the power of the court is governed by the
provisions of Section 320 of the Code of CriminalProcedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is
attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable.
(iii) In forming an opinion whether a criminal
proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise ofits jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must
evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the
exercise of the inherent power;
(iv) While the inherent power of the High Court
has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised; (i)
to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent an abuse of
the process of any court;
(v) The decision as to whether a complaint or First
Information Report should be quashed on the ground that::: Downloaded on – 07/09/2024 20:29:04 :::CIS
15 2024:HHC:8082the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves
ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case.
and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be
formulated;
(vi) In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and
while dealing with a plea that the dispute has bee inherent
n settled, the High Court must have due regard to the
nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious
offences involving mental depravity or offences such as
murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed
though the victim or the family of the victim have settled
the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private
in nature but have a serious impact upon society.
The decision to continue with the trial in such cases
is founded on the overriding element of public interest in
punishing persons for serious offences;
(vii) As distinguished from serious offences, there may
be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or
predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a
distinct footing in so far as the exercise of the inherent
power to quash is concerned;
(viii) Criminal cases involving offences which arise
from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or
similar transac mental tions with an essentially civil
flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing
where parties have settled the dispute;
(ix) In such a case, the High Court may quash the
criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise
between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction
is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding
would cause oppression and prejudice; and
(x) There is yet an exception to the principle set out in
propositions (viii) and (ix) above. Economic offences
involving the financial and economic well-being of the state
have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere
dispute between private disputants. The High Court
would be justified in declining to quash where the
offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or
economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of
the act complained of upon the financial or economic
system will weigh in the balance.”
::: Downloaded on – 07/09/2024 20:29:04 :::CIS
16 2024:HHC:8082
15. It is quite apparent from the aforesaid exposition of law that
.
High Court has inherent power to quash criminal proceedings even in those
cases which are not compoundable, but such power is to be exercised
sparingly and with great caution. In the judgments, referred hereinabove,
Hon’ble Apex Court has categorically held that Court while exercising
inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. must have due regard to the
nature and gravity of offence sought to be compounded. Hon’ble Apex Court
has though held that heinous and serious offences of mental depravity,
murder, rape, dacoity etc. cannot appropriately be quashed though the
victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute, but it has also
observed that while exercising its powers, High Court is to examine as to
whether the possibility of conviction of the petitioners is remote and bleak
and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great
oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to them
by not quashing the criminal cases. Hon’ble Apex Court has further held
that Court while exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C can also be
swayed by the fact that settlement between the parties is going to result in
harmony between them which may improve their future relationship.
Hon’ble Apex Court in its judgment rendered in State of Tamil Nadu
supra, has reiterated that Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the
High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the
::: Downloaded on – 07/09/2024 20:29:04 :::CIS
17 2024:HHC:8082
ends of justice and has held that the power to quash under Section 482 is
.
attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable. In the aforesaid
judgment Hon’ble Apex Court has held that while forming an opinion
whether a criminal proceedings or complaint should be quashed in exercise
of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether
the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power.
16. Hon’ble Apex Court in Ramgopal case (supra) has categorically
held that Court while exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C can
proceed to accept the compromise and quash the proceedings in those
cases where offences are pre-dominantly of a private nature and accused
stands convicted. It would be profitable to reproduce para Nos. No.13 and
14 of the aforesaid judgment herein:-
“13.It appears to us that criminal proceedings involving
nonheinous offences or where the offences are predominantlyof a private nature, can be annulled irrespective of the fact
that trial has already been concluded or appeal stands
dismissed against conviction. Handing out punishment is
not the sole form of delivering justice. Societal method ofapplying laws evenly is always subject to lawful exceptions. It
goes without saying, that the cases where compromise
is struck post conviction, the High Court ought to
exercise such discretion with rectitude, keeping in view the
circumstances surrounding the incident, the fashion in
which the compromise has been arrived at, and with due::: Downloaded on – 07/09/2024 20:29:04 :::CIS
18 2024:HHC:8082regard to the nature and seriousness of the offence, besides
.
the conduct of the accused, before and after the incidence.
The touchstone for exercising the extraordinary power under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. would be to secure the ends of justice.
There can be no hard and fast line constricting the power of
the High Court to do substantial justice. A restrictive
construction of inherent powers under Section 482
Cr.P.C. may lead to rigid or specious justice, which inthe given facts and circumstances of a case, may rather
lead to grave injustice. On the other hand, in cases where
heinous offences have been proved against perpetrators, no
such
rbenefit ought to be extended, as cautiouslyobserved by this Court in Narinder Singh & Ors. vs.
State of Punjab & Ors.3 and Laxmi Narayan (Supra).
14. In other words, grave or serious offences or
offences which involve moral turpitude or have a harmfuleffect on the social and moral fabric of the society or involve
matters concerning public policy, cannot be construed
betwixt two individuals or groups only, for such offenceshave the potential to impact the society at large. Effacing
abominable offences through quashing process would not
only send a wrong signal to the community but may alsoaccord an undue benefit to unscrupulous habitual or
professional offenders, who can secure a settlement’ through
duress, threats, social boycotts, bribes or other dubiousmeans. It is well said that “let no guilty man escape, if it can
be avoided.”
17. In the case at hand also, offences alleged to have been
committed by the petitioners do not involve offences of moral turpitude or
any grave/heinous crime, rather same are petty offences, as such, this
::: Downloaded on – 07/09/2024 20:29:04 :::CIS
19 2024:HHC:8082
Court deems it appropriate to quash the FIR as well as consequential
.
proceedings thereto, especially keeping in view the fact that the
complainant and petitioners have compromised the matter inter-se them,
in which case, possibility of conviction is remote and no fruitful purpose
would be served in continuing with the criminal proceedings.
18. Consequently, in view of the averments contained in the
petition as well as the submissions having been made by the learned
counsel for the parties that the matter has been compromised and keeping
in mind the well settled proposition of law as well as the compromise being
genuine, this Court has no inhibition in accepting the compromise and
quashing the FIR as well as consequent proceedings pending in the
competent Court of law.
19. Accordingly, in view of the detailed discussion made
hereinabove as well as law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, FIR
No.132/2005 (Ext.PW6/A), dated 22.4.2005 registered under Sections 353,
332, 506 and 34 of IPC at Police Station Gaggal, Tehsil and District Kangra,
Himachal Pradesh, is quashed and set-aside, as result thereof, consequent
proceedings i.e. judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
27/28.4.2011 passed in Criminal Challan No. 62-II/2005 by the learned
Judicial Magistrate First Class (I) as well as judgment dated 18.6.2019,
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Kangra at
::: Downloaded on – 07/09/2024 20:29:04 :::CIS
20 2024:HHC:8082
Dharamshala, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh (camp at Jawali) are also
.
quashed and set-aside. The accused are acquitted of the charges framed
against them.
20. The present petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending
application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
September 5, 2024 (Sandeep Sharma),
Judge
(manjit)
::: Downloaded on - 07/09/2024 20:29:04 :::CIS