High Court quashed FIR and pending proceedings under Sections 452, 323, 504 IPC after parties reached amicable settlement, relying on _Gian Singh_ to allow quashing of non-compoundable offences where justice demands it.
FIR No.41 of 2013 and all consequential proceedings in Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court Amb, District Una quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
Cr.MMO No. 62 of 2014
Decided on: 5th May, 2014
Ankur Kalia and another .......Petitioners.
Versus
State of H.P and others
...Respondents.
Coram
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioners: Mr. Rohit Bharoll, Advocate vice Ramesh Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. D.S. Nainta, Addl.A.G with Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Asstt. A.G for the respondent-State.
Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Judge. (Oral)
Heard.
1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? Yes.
2
statement have stated that now an amicable settlement is arrived at between the parties and, as such, he is no more interested to prosecute the criminal case registered at the instance of complainant Rajesh Kalia, against the accusedpetitioners, any further. Accused-petitioners have also stated so in their joint statement recorded separately. The investigation in this case is complete and challan stands filed, which presently is at the stage of service in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Amb, District Una, H.P. In the meanwhile, the respondents, who are the victims, have amicably settled the dispute with accusedpetitioners.
3
commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions, matrimonial or relating to dowry etc., in which the wrong basically is done to the victim and irrespective of the offence not compoundable, the victim and the accused have settled the dispute amicably. However, as per this judgment, the apex Court, in cases of serious nature like rape, dacoity and corruption cases etc., had deprecated the practice of quashing FIR for the reason that such offences have serious impact in the society at large. This judgment reads as follows:-
“ 58. Where High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that dispute between the offender and victim has been settled although offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. No doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful effect on the public and consist in wrong doing that seriously endangers and threatens wellbeing of society and it is not safe to leave the crime- doer only because he and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the victim has been paid compensation, yet certain crimes have been made compoundable in law, with or without permission of the Court. In respect of serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc; or other offences of mental depravity under IPC or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between offender and victim can have no legal sanction at all. However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial,
4
partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to victim and the offender and victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or F.I.R if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated. The above list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Each case will depend on its own facts and no hard and fast category can be prescribed.”
5
May 5, 2014 (Dharam Chand Chaudhary) (naveen) Judge
3 issues framed by the court
Whether High Court can quash non-compoundable FIR upon amicable settlement.
Whether settlement bars quashing of FIR under inherent powers.
Whether criminal proceedings must continue despite victim's lack of interest.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gian Singh versus State of Punjab and anotherExplained¶17
(2012) 10 SCC 30 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Ankur Kalia
State of H.P
Dharam Chand Chaudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
