Allowed

Ajay Kumar v. State of Hp

Himachal Pradesh HC17 May 2017CRMMO/117/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh exercised its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash an FIR and pending criminal proceedings. Despite the offence being non-compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C., the Court allowed the quashing because the parties had amicably settled the dispute, and continuation of the trial would serve no useful purpose.

What did the court decide?

FIR No.213 of 2013 and criminal case No. 26-2 of 2014 are quashed and set aside.

Ajay Kumar Vs State of Hp — Quashing and FIR | Himachal Pradesh HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.

¶2

Cr. MMO No. 117 of 2017. Decided on: 17.5.2017

¶3

Ajay Kumar & anr.

¶4

.......Petitioners.

¶5

Versus State of H.P. & anr. ….…Respondents.

¶6

Coram

¶7

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹ No. For the petitioners : Mr. Vijay Arora, Advocate.

¶8

For the Respondents : Mr. M.L. Chauhan, Addl. A.G. and Mr. D.S.Nainta, Addl. AG for respondent No.1.

¶9

Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. (oral).

¶10

Petitioners are accused in case No. 26-2 of 2014 titled State of H.P. vs. Ajay Kumar and ors. pending disposal in the Court of learned JMIC (V), Shimla. FIR Annexure P-1 was initially registered against them for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 324 IPC. On the basis of the investigation conducted, the report, however, was filed against them for the

¶11

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

¶12

¶13

commission of offence punishable under Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC alone. The copy of the report is Annexure P-5 to the application filed today in the Court. The accused petitioner Ajay Kumar had also lodged cross-FIR against the complainantrespondent No. 2 and his co-accused Abhinav for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 451, 323 read with Section 34 IPC. He, however, during the course of trial approached learned trial Magistrate under Section 320 Cr.P.C for compounding of the offence, the complainant-respondent No. 2 and his co-accused allegedly committed. Learned trial Magistrate vide order Annexure P-4 dated 6.3.2017, while allowing the compounding of the offence punishable under Sections 451 and 323 read with Section 34 IPC has ordered the acquittal of complainant-respondent No. 2 Ravi Kant and his o- accused Abhinav in that case.

¶14

¶15

Now the complainant-respondent No. 2 and the accused petitioners have settled the dispute amicably and executed the compromise-deed Annexure P-3. The complainant is no more interested to prosecute the accused-petitioners any further in the criminal case pending against them in the Court of learned JMIC (V), Shimla. His statement to this effect has been recorded separately. In view of the offence the accused-petitioners allegedly committed under Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC is not compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C., therefore, the trial against them is in progress in the trial Court. The accused petitioners who are present in person have also prayed for quashing of FIR and the pending criminal case against them as according to them in view of the amicable settlement already arrived at between them the complainant-respondent No. 2 is no more interested to prosecute them any further. Their statements have also been recorded separately.

¶16

¶17

In this view of the matter, the Court feels that

¶18

no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing the proceedings in the criminal case to continue against them because in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, the same in all probabilities is likely to be ended in acquittal. Allowing the proceedings to continue rather would amount to abuse of process of law.

¶19

As per legal position settled at this stage even in a case where compounding of an offence is not permissible the parties, viz the victim of an occurrence and the accused, if compromised the disputes between them in an amicable settlement, may approach the High Court for quashing the FIR. The support in this regard can be drawn from the judgment of the apex Court in Gian Singh versus State of Punjab and another, (2012) 10 SCC 303.

¶20

The relevant text of this judgment reads as follows:-

¶21

¶22

“ 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 well-being 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

¶23

¶24

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, 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

¶25

¶26

illustrative and not exhaustive. Each case will depend on its own facts and no hard and fast category can be prescribed.”

¶27

In view of the law laid down by the apex

¶28

Court in the judgment supra, the High Court in exercise of the inherent powers vested in it under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure may quash the FIR in a case where the offence allegedly committed by the accused though is not compoundable; however, the victim and accused have settled the disputes amicably and the victim is no more interested to prosecute the accused and the complaint he made against him. Such power, of course, has to be exercised sparingly and in appropriate cases having arisen out of civil mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or any other transactions of like nature including matrimonial or the cases relating to dowry etc., in which the wrong basically is done to the victim.

¶29

¶30

Since the wrong in this case, if any, is done to the complainant, who is respondent No.2 in this petition and as he is no more interested to prosecute the complaint, he lodged against the petitioner, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing the proceedings in the criminal case to continue against the petitioner for the reason that the prosecution in view of the subsequent development ultimately is likely to be terminated in acquittal of the accused. Being so, this petition is allowed. Consequently, FIR No.213 of 2013, dated 31.10.2013, registered against the petitioners in Police Station, Sadar Shimla and consequential criminal proceedings in case No. 26-2 of 2014 pending disposal before learned JMIC (V), Shimla, shall stand quashed and set aside.

¶31

In view of what has been said hereinabove, the petition is disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. The application filed in

¶32

¶33

the Court, however, be registered separately and

¶34

taken on record.

¶35

(Dharam Chand Chaudhary) May 17, 2017 (karan) Judge.

Ajay Kumar v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay Kumar v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kunta Devi Vs Dubgaut Tanjin@Sangye Negi

State of Hp Vs Satnam Singh Alias Satto

Budhi Singh Vs Hari Singh

General Manager Northern Railway Vs Ram Kumar

Rakesh Bhardwaj Vs Pradeep Chand Giri

Ram Lal Sharma Vs State of Hp