Allowed

Mangal Singh @ Gopi v. State of Hp and Anr.

Himachal Pradesh HC3 Aug 2022CRMMO/198/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash FIR No.0127 of 2018 registered under Section 354-D IPC. The Court held that the inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC are not inhibited by Section 320 CrPC and exercised jurisdiction to quash the FIR and consequent proceedings due to a valid compromise between the parties for the ends of j

What did the court decide?

Quashed FIR No.0127/2018 dated 13.3.2018 and all consequent criminal proceedings pending or initiated against the petitioner.

Mangal Singh @ Gopi Vs State of Hp and Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Himachal Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA ON THE 3^rd DAY OF AUGUST, 2022 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIVEK SINGH THAKUR CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION (MAIN) U/S 482 CRPC No. 198 OF 2022 BETWEEN:-

¶2

1. MANGAL SINGH @ GOPI AGED 25 YEARS, SON OF SH. RAM MURTI, RESIDENT OF WARD NO.2 VILLAGE BANGARH POST OFFICE JAKHERA TEHSIL AND DISTRICT UNA, HIMACHAL PRADESH.

¶3

(BY SH. R.P. SINGH ADVOCATE)

¶4

AND

¶5

PETITIONER

¶6

1. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

¶7

(MS. DIVYA SOOD, DEPUTY ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR R-1)

¶8

2. SMT. VANDANA, WIFE OF JASWINDER SINGH, RESIDENT OF WARD NO.2, VILLAGE BANGARH POST OFFICE JAKHERA TEHSIL AND DISTRICT UNA, H.P.

¶9

RESPONDENTS

¶10

(SH. SUNIL THAKUR ADVOCATE FOR R-2 ) whether approved for Reporting?

¶11

This petition coming on for admission this day, the Court passed the

¶12

following:

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

The instant petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.PC’), has been filed by the petitioner, on the basis of compromise arrived at between him and respondents No. 2 for quashing of FIR No.0127 of 2018, dated 13.3.2018, registered in Police Station Sadar, Una, District Una, H.P. under Section 354-D of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’) and consequential proceedings arising thereto.

¶15

¶16

Mangal Singh (Petitioner) and Vandana (respondent No.2) are present in person. They are duly identified by their respective learned counsel. Their statements, on oath, have been recorded separately.

¶17

Vandana (respondent No.2)-complainant, in her statement, has stated that she and the petitioner are residents of same village and the matter has been amicably settled between them. She has further stated that she has decided to forget the past for peaceful, harmoneous and cordial atmosphere in her life and, therefore, she has entered into compromise, which has been placed on record. She has endorsed her signature on the compromise and has prayed for quashing of FIR and setting aside the criminal proceedings arising thereto.

¶18

Mangal Singh (Petitioner), endorsing the statement of complainant, has undertaken to be more careful in future and not to create such situation leading to lodging of FIR . He has also prayed for quashing of FIR and setting aside of criminal proceedings against him.

¶19

Petitioner (Mangal Singh ) and Vandana (respondent No.2) have stated that they have deposed in the Court, out of their free will and consent, and without any threat or coercion of any kind.

¶20

It is contended on behalf of respondent No.1-State that petitioner 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.

¶21

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

¶22

¶23

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 favour 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.

¶24

The Apex Court in Parbatbhai Aahir alias Parbhathbhai Bhimsinghbhai Karmur and others vs. State of Gujarat and another, (2017) 9 SCC 641, summarizing the broad 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.

¶25

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

¶26

¶27

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.

¶28

No doubt, Section 354-D of the Indian Penal Code is not compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C, however, as explained by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh’s, Narinder Singh’s, Parbatbhai 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 Cr.PC and FIR as well as criminal proceedings can be quashed by exercising inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.PC, 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.

¶29

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.

¶30

Now, the matter has been amicably settled between the private parties, as such, I am of the considered view that no fruitful purpose shall be served to continue the proceedings against accused- respondent.

¶31

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. 0127/2018 dated 13.3.2018, registered in Police Station Sadar Una, District Una, H.P. is quashed. Consequent to quashing of FIR,

¶32

¶33

criminal proceedings pending/ initiated against petitioner-accused in pursuance thereto, are also quashed.

¶34

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

¶35

The parties are permitted to use/produce copy of this judgment, downloaded from the web-page of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, before the authorities concerned, and the said authorities shall not insist for production of a certified copy but if required, may verify passing of order from Website of the High

¶36

Court.

¶37

3^rd August, 2022 (veena)

¶38

(Vivek Singh Thakur), Judge.

Mangal Singh @ Gopi v. State of Hp and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mangal Singh @ Gopi v. State of Hp and Anr.

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

Pritam Chand Vs Managing Director, Hrtc and Ors.

Vikas Sood Vs Govind Sharma

Union of India Vs Sh. Dhalu and Ors.

Pradeep Kumar and Anr. Vs State of Hp

Prem Chand and Anr. Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Ruchika Sidhwani Alias Mona Vs Sunita Kashyap and Another