Prateek and Others Vs State of Hp and Others

2024:HHC:4751

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr.MMO Nos.156 and 157 of 2024 Date of Decision: 08.07.2024

________________________________________ 1.Cr.MMO No.156 of 2024	_______________
Prateek & others Versus State of H.P. & others	…….Petitioners … Respondents
2.Cr.MMO No.157 of 2024
Pyare Lal & others Versus	…….Petitioners
State of H.P. & others	… Respondents
________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹	_______________

¶5

For the Petitioner(s):	Mr. Raman Prashar, Advocate, for the petitioners in Cr.MMO No. 156 of 2024 and for respondent No.3 in Cr.MMO No. 157 of 2024.
For the Respondents:	Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent-State, in both the petitions. Kr. Virender Singh, Advocate, for respondent No. 3 in Cr.MMO No. 156 of 2024 and for the petitioners in Cr.MMO No.157 of 2024.
___________________ Sandeep Sharma, Jud	____________________________________ ge (oral):

¶6

By way of above captioned petitions filed under Section

¶7

482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, prayer has been made on

¶8

behalf of the petitioners, in both the petitions, for quashing of FIR No. 27/2024, dated 26.2.2024, under Sections 341, 323, 147, 148, 149,

¶9

504 and 506 of IPC and FIR No.28 of 2024, dated 26.2.2024, under

¶10

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

¶11

2

¶12

Sections 341, 323, 147, 148, 149, 504 and 506 of IPC, registered at Police Station Darlaghat, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh 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 both the parties have resolved to settle their dispute amicably interse them.

¶13

2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record are that on 26.2.2024, at around 2:00pm, when respondent No.3 (complainant in Cr.MMO No. 156 of 2024) was present in his house at Bhararighat, he saw five persons i.e. petitioners, hurling abuses and giving beatings to each other. Above named complainant alleged that when he interrupted, they also gave him beatings, as a result thereof, he suffered multiple injuries. In the aforesaid backdrop, FIR No. 27 of 2024 under the aforesaid provisions of law came to be lodged at the behest of the complainant Pyare Lal.

¶14

3. In FIR No. 28 of 2024, complainant Prateek Sharma, made counter allegation that while he alongwith four persons was staying in a hotel, one of their friend got angry and went outside the hotel. Complainant alleged that when two of them went outside to sort out the issue, petitioners ( in Cr.MMO No.157 of 2024), while hurling abuses came there and started giving them beatings, as a result of which, they suffered multiple injuries. On the basis of aforesaid complaint made by the complainant(s), police after having

¶15

3

¶16

lodged the cross-FIRs against the parties, filed challan in the competent court of law, but before same could be taken to its logical end, parties to the lis have resolved to settle their dispute amicably inter-se them by way of compromise placed on record and as such, petitioners in both the petitions have approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to quash and set-aside the FIRs as well as consequent proceedings pending before the competent court of law.

¶17

4. Vide order dated 16.3.2024 passed in both the petitions, this Court view a view to ascertain the correctness and genuineness of the compromise arrived interse parties, deemed it necessary to cause presence of the parties, especially the complainants. Besides above, this Court also called upon the respondent-State to file status report/reply, specifically stating therein factum, if any, of the compromise arrived interse parties.

¶18

5. Pursuant to aforesaid order, both the parties came present in Court on 4.4.2024. Complainants, in both the petitions, namely, Pyare Lal and Prateek Sharma stated on oath before this Court that they of their own volition and without there being any external pressure have entered into the compromise, whereby they have resolved to settle their dispute amicably interse them. They stated that FIRs, sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings, are the result of misunderstanding coupled with the fact that parties have

¶19

4

¶20

apologized for their misbehaviour and have undertaken not to repeat such act in future, they shall have no objection in case cross-FIRs lodged at their behest are quashed and set aside and petitionersaccused, as detailed hereinabove, are acquitted of the charges framed against them. While admitting the content of the compromise placed on record to be correct, they also admitted their signatures upon the same. Their statements are already on record.

¶21

6. Besides above, other accused, named in both the FIRs namely, Manpreet Singh, Sukhman Sharma, Jaspreet Singh, Jai Dei, Ram Pyari, Yogesh Kumar and Dharampal, also came present and stated that FIRs, sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings, are result of misunderstanding and they have already apologized for their misconduct. While admitting the contents of the compromise placed on record to be correct, they also admitted their signatures upon the same. Their statements are also on record.

¶22

7. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, after having perused the aforesaid statements made by the respondents/ complainants, in both the cases, fairly states that no fruitful purpose would be served in case FIR as well as consequent proceedings sought to be quashed are allowed to sustain. He further states that otherwise also, chances of conviction of petitionersaccused are very remote and bleak in view of the statements made by

¶23

5

¶24

the complainants/respondents as such, respondent-State shall have no objection in case the prayer made in the petitions is allowed.

¶25

8. The question which now needs consideration is whether FIR’s 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 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., since such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society.

¶26

9. 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,

¶27

6

¶28

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.

¶29

10. 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. 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.

¶30

11. 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

¶31

7

¶32

the 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 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.

¶33

12. 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.

¶34

8

¶35

13. In the cases 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 cross-FIRs as well as consequential proceedings arising therefrom, especially keeping in view the fact that the petitioners and the complainants 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.

¶36

14. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court (supra), FIR No. 27/2024, dated 26.2.2024, under Sections 341, 323, 147, 148, 149, 504 and 506 of IPC and FIR No.28 of 2024, dated 26.2.2024, under Sections 341, 323, 147, 148, 149, 504 and 506 of IPC, registered at police Station Darlaghat, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh as well as consequent proceedings, if any, pending adjudication in the competent Court of law, are quashed and set aside. PetitionersAccused are acquitted of the charges framed against them.

¶37

15. The petitions stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms, alongwith all pending applications.

¶38

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

¶39

July 08, 2024 (shankar)

Prateek and Others v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prateek and Others v. State of Hp and Others

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

Himachali Parmar Vs M/s Puri Ornaments and Anr.

Rama Nand Vs Shiv Ram

Vikrant Verma Vs Shalu Verma and Anr.

Pankaj Kumar Sahore Vs Rajesh Modgil

Pyare Lal and Others Vs State of Hp and Others

Ravinder Kumar Vs Hema Rani and Another