Petitioner sought quashing of an FIR for forgery and cheating alleging private commercial dispute resolved via compromise. High Court held that forging official certificates affects public integrity and cannot be quashed merely due to compromise, dismissing the petition.
Petition for quashing of FIR and consequent judicial proceedings dismissed.
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. 224/2023 Decided on: 04.04.2023
Bhawan Kumar
.…Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. & Others
…… Respondents
Coram
Hon’ble Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1
For the petitioner : Mr. Dalip K. Sharma, Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Mr. Rupinder Singh, Additional Advocates General with Ms. Seema Sharma, Mr. Sumit Sharma, Deputy Advocates General, for respondent No.1.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J .
Petitioner is one of the accused persons in FIR No.35/2022, dated 25.02.2022 registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Manpura, Police District Baddi, District Solan, H.P. He has invoked Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the said FIR and the consequent judicial proceedings.
1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2
3
quashing of the FIR and consequent judicial proceedings has been made on the strength of a compromise deed stated to have been executed on 01.01.2023 (Annexure P/2) between the petitioner and respondent No.2-Umesh Singh (care taker of M/S U.S. Industries).
5. The law laid down in respect of exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing or for refusing to quash the FIR and resultant proceedings on the basis of compromise effected by the parties in (2012) 10 SCC 303 titled Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab ; (2014) 6 SCC 466 titled Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab ; (2017) 9 SCC 641 titled as Parbatbhai Aahir vs. State of Gujarat, has been noticed again by Hon’ble Apex Court in (2019) 5 SCC 688 , titled as State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan with following observations:-
“ 15 . Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of this Court on the point, referred to hereinabove, it is observed and held as under:
15.1 That the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves;
15.2. Such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved 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;
4
15.3 Similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender; 15.4 Offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act etc. would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal proceedings for the offence under Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act etc. which have a serious impact on the society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code, on the ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst themselves. 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 framing 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. However, such an exercise by the High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and the charge sheet is filed/charge is framed and/or during the trial. Such exercise is not permissible when the matter is still under investigation. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in paragraphs 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in the case of Narinder Singh (supra) should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove;
15.5 While exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non-compoundable offences, which are private in nature and do not have a serious impart on society, on the ground that there is a settlement/compromise between the victim and the offender, the High Court is required to consider the antecedents of the accused; the conduct of the accused, namely, whether the accused was
5
absconding and why he was absconding, how he had managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise etc.”
The petitioner is facing serious allegations of having been involved in offences for providing forged No Objection Certificates of Himachal Pradesh Pollution Control Board and of Himachal Pradesh Fire Department to respondent No.2. He is accused in the aforesaid FIR registered on 25.02.2022 for commission of offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 467 provides for a punishment with imprisonment of life or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years. In the face of status report filed by respondent No.1, offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioner cannot be said to be personal offences. The allegations put forth against the petitioner are very serious and against the public at large. Hence, the instant petition seeking quashing of the FIR & consequent judicial proceedings on the strength of compromise cannot be allowed. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. All pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
It is made clear that observations made above are only for the purpose of adjudication of instant petition and shall not be construed as an opinion on the merits of the matter. Learned Trial
6
Court shall decide the matter without being influenced by any of the
observations made hereinabove.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can exercise its power under Section 482 CrPC to quash an FIR for forgery and cheating based on a compromise between the accused and the victim in a private commercial transacti
Whether offences involving forged official certificates affecting the public at large can be treated as private offences suitable for quashing on compromise.
Whether the presence of a valid compromise deed is sufficient grounds to quash criminal proceedings for non-compoundable offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gian Singh vs. State of PunjabReferred¶21
(2012) 10 SCC 303 Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab · Who else cites this
Narinder Singh vs. State of PunjabReferred¶21
(2014) 6 SCC 466 Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab · Who else cites this
Parbatbhai Aahir vs. State of GujaratReferred¶21
(2017) 9 SCC 641 Parbatbhai Aahir vs. State of Gujarat · Who else cites this
State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi NarayanReferred¶21
(2019) 5 SCC 688 State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Bhawan Kumar
State of H.P.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
