Ajay Verma Vs State of Hp and Another

¶1

2024:HHC:4633

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

Cr.MMO No.1275 of 2023

¶4

Date of Decision: 05.07.2024

¶5

_______________________________________________________ Ajay Verma …….Petitioner Versus State of H.P & Anr. … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram:

¶6

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶7

For the Petitioner:	Mr. Anil Chauhan, Advocate.
For the Respondents:	Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal B.C. Verma, Additional Adv for respondent No.1-State.	Panwar and Mr. ocate Generals,
	Mr. Bhupinder Ahuja, respondent No.2.	Advocate, for

¶8

_______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

¶9

By way of instant petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for quashing of FIR No.45 of 2012 (Annexure P-1) , dated 01.06.2012, under Sections 25 of Arms Act and Section 506 of Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Shimla East, Shimla, H.P., as well as consequent proceedings, if any, pending adjudication in the competent court of law, on the basis of the compromise arrived inter se parties, whereby they have resolved to settle their dispute amicably inter se them.

¶10

1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶11

2

¶12

Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the

¶13

record are that FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings came to be lodged at the behest of respondent/complainant No. 2 Mr. Jagat Ram (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘complainant’), who alleged that on 01.06.2012 at about 03:30 p.m., while he was going towards Vijay Nagar from Kusumpati and had reached near Vijay Nagar, few workers of Municipal Corporation were repairing the road. Complainant alleged that petitioner-accused not only obstructed the contractor, who was doing the repair work, but came on the spot with sword and started extending threats. However, subsequently his mother and other neighbourers took him inside the room. In the aforesaid background, FIR, as detailed herein above, came to be lodged against the petitioners-accused under relevant provision of Arms Act/ Indian Penal Code.

¶14

Though, after completion of investigation, Police has already presented challan in the competent court of law against the petitioner-accused under Section 25 of Arms Act and Section 506 of Indian Penal Code, but before the same could be taken to its logical end, complainant, respondents No. 2 and petitioner-accused named in the FIR have entered into compromise, whereby they have resolved to settle their dispute amicably intere se them and as such, petitioner-accused has approached this Court in the instant

¶15

3

¶16

proceedings, for quashing of FIR as well as consequent proceedings, if any, pending adjudication in the competent court of law.

¶17

Pursuant to order dated 26.12.2023, respondent-State has filed status report dated 04.01.2024 under the signatures of SHO,

¶18

PS East Shimla, but same is silent about compromise, if any. Respondent No. 2, who is being represented by Mr. Bhupinder Ahuja, Advocate, states on oath that he of his own volition and without any external pressure have entered into compromise with the petitioneraccused, whereby both the parties have resolved to settle their dispute amicably interse them. He states that since petitioner has already apologized for his misbehaviour and mis-conduct and undertaken not to repeat such act in future, he with a view to maintain cordial relations and to protect the career of petitioner, who is young, has decided not to prosecute the case further. He states that he shall have no objection in case, prayer made for quashing of FIR through instant petition is accepted and petitioner-accused is acquitted of charges framed against him. While admitting contents of compromise placed on record to be correct, he also admits his signatures thereupon. His statement is taken on record.

¶19

After having heard aforesaid statement made on oath by respondents No. 2, Mr.B.C.Verma, learned Additional Advocate General, fairly states that no fruitful purpose would be served in case

¶20

4

¶21

FIR as well as consequent proceedings pending adjudication in the competent court of law are allowed to sustain, rather pendency of the same may further widen the rift inter se parties. He further states that otherwise also chances of conviction of the petitioner-accused are very remote and bleak on account of statement made by the complainant on oath and as such, this court may proceed to pass appropriate orders.

¶22

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 SCC 466 has specifically held that power under Section 482 Cr.P.C (hereinafter to be referred to as the “ Code ”) 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?

¶23

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

¶24

5

¶25

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 Cr.P.C is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 Cr.P.C. No doubt, under Section 482 Cr.P.C, 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.

¶26

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

¶27

6

¶28

relationship or family disputes may be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves. Aforesaid view taken by Hon'ble Apex Court has been further reiterated in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and anr. (2012) 10 SCC 303.

¶29

The Hon’ble Apex Court in case Gian Singh supra 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 to compound the offences under Section 320 Cr.P.C. 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.P.C the Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime and its 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

¶30

7

¶31

observed that when offences of a personal nature, burying them would bring about peace and amity between the two sides.

¶32

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.

¶33

In the case at hand also, offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioners 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 petitioners, complainant and respondent No. 3 have compromised the matter interse them, in which case, possibility of conviction is remote and no fruitful purpose would be served in continuing with the criminal proceedings.

¶34

Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court (supra), FIR No.45 of 2012, dated 01.06.2012, under Sections 25 of Arms Act and Section 506 of Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Shimla East,

¶35

8

¶36

Shimla, H.P., as well as consequent proceedings, if any, pending adjudication in the competent court of law are quashed and set aside. Accused is acquitted of the charges framed against him.

¶37

The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms, alongwith all pending applications.

¶38

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

¶39

July 05, 2024 (sunil)

Ajay Verma v. State of Hp and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay Verma v. State of Hp and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Valister Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Jagbir Vs Sandeep Mehta

Rajesh Kumar Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Sanjay Kumar Vs Kubja Devi

Nitish Kumar Vs Neha Kumari

Himachali Parmar Vs M/s Puri Ornaments and Anr.