Disposed

Ajay Kumar v. State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC11 Jul 2024CRMMO/118/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition to quash FIR No. 106/2023 under Section 379 IPC (motorcycle theft) registered at Police Station Swarghat on the basis of compromise between petitioner and complainant. Complainant stated on oath he no longer wished to prosecute. Following Supreme Court guidelines, the court quashed the FIR and consequential proceedings and acquitted the accused.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 106/2023 under Section 379 IPC and consequential proceedings quashed qua petitioner; accused acquitted of charges framed.

Ajay Kumar Vs State of Hp and Others — Quashing and FIR | Himachal Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CrMMO No. 118 of 2024 Date of Decision: 11.7.2024

¶3

_____________________________________________________________________ Ajay Kumar ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.

¶4

……...Petitioner Versus …....Respondents

¶5

Coram

¶6

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?

¶7

For the Petitioner: Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General, for the State. Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate, for respondent No.3. ___________________________________________________________________________

¶8

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

¶9

By way of instant petition, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for quashing of FIR No. 106/2023, dated 21.12.2023, under Section 379 of IPC, registered with Police Station Swarghat, District Bilaspur, H.P., as well as consequent proceedings, if any, pending before the court below, on the basis of compromise/amicable settlement arrived inter-se parties.

¶10

¶11

2. Averments contained in the petition, which is duly supported by an affidavit, reveal that FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings came to be lodged at the behest of the respondent No.3 Sh. Malkiat Singh (herein after referred to as “ the complainant ”), who alleged that on 15.12.2023, while he had parked his motorcycle bearing registration No. HP 24B3559 on the back side of the Hotel Hilltop, situate at Garod and when he came back from Shimla, his motorcycle was found missing. In the aforesaid backdrop, FIR sought to be quashed came to be lodged against the petitioner as well as other co-accused. Though after completion of investigation, police presented challan in the competent court of law, but before same could be taken to its logical end, parties have entered into compromise, whereby they have resolved to settle their dispute amicably inter-se them. As such, petitioner herein has approached this Court for quashing of FIR as well as consequent proceedings pending in the competent court of law.

¶12

3. Vide order dated 13.5.2024, this Court directed the parties, especially respondent No.3 to come present before this Court. Respondent No. 3 Malkiat Singh, who is present in the Court and duly represented by Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate, states oath that he of his own volition and without there being any external pressure has entered into compromise,

¶13

¶14

whereby both the parties have resolved to settle their dispute amicably. He states that since motorcycle in question has been recovered coupled with the fact that petitioner has apologized for his mis-conduct and has undertaken not to repeat such mistake in future, he does not wish to prosecute the case further and shall have no objection in case prayer made by the petitioner for quashing of FIR is accepted. Respondent No. 3 while admitting the contents of the compromise to be correct also admits his signature on the same. His statement is taken on record.

¶15

4. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, having heard aforesaid statement made by respondent No.3 states that in view of the amicable settlement arrived inter-se parties, no fruitful purpose would be served in case FIR sought to be quashed as well as consequent proceedings pending before the court below are allowed to sustain. He further states that otherwise also, chances of conviction of the petitioner in view of the aforesaid statement made on oath by the respondentcomplainant are very remote and bleak and as such, prayer made in the instant petition may be accepted.

¶16

2. The question which now needs consideration is whether FIR in question can be ordered to be quashed when Hon'ble Apex Court in Narinder Singh and others versus State of Punjab and another (2014)6

¶17

¶18

SCC 466 has specifically held that power under S. 482 CrPC is not to be exercised in the cases 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.

¶19

3. At this stage, it would be relevant to take note of the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Narinder Singh (supra), whereby the 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 to 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 criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable and where the parties have settled the matter between themselves, however, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with great caution. In para Nos. 29 to 29.7 of the judgment Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down certain parameters to be followed, while compounding offences.

¶20

¶21

4. Careful perusal of para 29.3 of the judgment suggests that such a power is not to be exercised in the cases 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. Apart from this, offences committed under special statute like the 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. On the other hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes may be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves.

¶22

5. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and

¶23

anr. (2012) 10 SCC 3 03 has held that power of the High Court in quashing of the criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint in exercise of its 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 of quashment under Section 482 Cr.PC the Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime and its

¶24

¶25

social impact and it cautioned the Courts not to exercise the power for quashing proceedings in heinous and serious offences of mental depravity, 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 further reiterated that 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. Hon'ble Apex Court further observed that when offences of a personal nature, burying them would bring about peace and amity between the two sides.

¶26

6. 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.

¶27

7. Since parties have compromised the matter with each other and respondent No.3-complainant, at whose instance, FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings came to be lodged, is no more interested in pursuing the criminal prosecution of the petitioner, this court

¶28

¶29

sees no impediment in accepting the prayer made by the petitioner for quashing of the FIR alongwith consequential proceedings.

¶30

8. In the case at hand also, offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioner do not involve offences of moral turpitude or any grave/heinous crime, rather same are petty offences, as such, this Court deems it appropriate to quash the FIR as well as consequential proceedings thereto, especially keeping in view the fact that the petitioner and the complainant have compromised the matter inter-se them, in which case, possibility of conviction is remote/bleak and no fruitful purpose would be served in continuing with the criminal proceedings.

¶31

9. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court (supra), FIR No. 106/2023, dated 21.12.2023, under Section 379 of IPC, registered with Police Station Swarghat, District Bilaspur, H.P., alongwith consequential proceedings, are quashed and set aside qua the petitioner-accused. Accused is acquitted of the charges framed against him. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms, alongwith all pending applications.

¶32

July 11, 2024 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge

Ajay Kumar v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay Kumar v. State of Hp and Others

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

Naveen Kumar Vs State of Hp and Another

Abhishek Chauhan Vs Om Parakash

Ajay Kumar Vs Narender Singh and Another

Prem Raj Vs State of Hp and Another

Himachal Gramin Bank Vs Pradeep Kumar and another

Keshav Ram Vs Land Acquisition Collector and Others