Manoj Sharma Vs State of Hp and Another

2024:HHC:5484

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr.MMO No.275 of 2024 Date of Decision: 18.07.2024

_______________________________________________________ Manoj Sharma …….Petitioner Versus Sate of HP & Anr. … Respondents

¶5

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

¶6

For the Petitioner: Mr. Anirudh Thakur, Advocate. 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 respondent No.1-State. Mr. Yug Singhal, Advocate, for respondent No. 2.

¶7

_______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

¶8

By way of instant petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, prayer has been made on behalf of petitioner for quashing of FIR No. 220 of 2019, dated 14.10.2019, under Sections 354-A and 509 of Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Sadar, Shimla, H.P., as well as consequent proceedings, 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.

¶9

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

¶10

2

¶11

Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record are that FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings, came to be lodged at the behest of respondent No. 2 Smt. Sanjana Banchta (hereinafter to be referred to as 'complainant), who alleged that while she was working as Assistant Manager in Rajdeep and Company Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., situated at Bharari, Shimla, petitioner herein namely Manoj Kumar, who is younger brother of the founder of the company, attempted to lure her by making unpleasant and explicit sexual overture. She also alleged that repeatedly above named person behaved indecently. In the aforesaid background, FIR, as detailed herein above, came to be lodged against the petitioneraccused under relevant provisions of Indian Penal Code.

¶12

Though, after completion of investigation, Police has already presented challan in the competent court of law against the petitioner-accused, 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 and as such, petitioneraccused has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, for quashing of FIR as well as consequent proceedings, if any, pending adjudication in the competent court of law.

¶13

Vide order dated 24.04.2024, this court with a view to ascertain the correctness of compromise placed on record, besides

¶14

3

¶15

directing respondent-State to file status report, had also directed parties, especially respondent No. 2 to come present in Court. Respondent-State has filed status report, but the same is silent about the compromise.

¶16

Complainant Smt. Sanjana Banchta, who is being represented by Mr. Yug Singhal, Advocate, states on oath that she of her own volition and without any external pressure has entered into compromise with the petitioner-accused, whereby both the parties have resolved to settle their dispute amicably inter se them. She states that FIR sought to be quashed is a result of misunderstanding and since petitioner-accused has already apologized for his misbehaviour and further undertaken not to repeat such act in future, she shall have no objection in case, prayer made on behalf of petitioner-accused for quashing of FIR through instant petition is accepted and he is acquitted of charges framed against him. While admitting contents of compromise placed on record to be correct, she also admits her signatures thereupon. Her statement is taken on record.

¶17

After having heard aforesaid statement made by the complainant, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, fairly states that no fruitful purpose would be served in case FIR as well as consequent proceedings pending adjudication in the

¶18

4

¶19

competent court of law are allowed to sustain, rather pendency of the same may further widen the rift inter se petitioner-accused and victimprosecutrix. 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 before this court.

¶20

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., as such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society?

¶21

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 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

¶22

5

¶23

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.

¶24

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

¶25

6

¶26

taken by Hon'ble Apex Court has been further reiterated in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and anr. (2012) 10 SCC 303.

¶27

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

¶28

7

¶29

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.

¶30

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

¶31

Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court (supra), FIR No. 220 of 2019, dated 14.10.2019, under Sections 354-A and 509 of Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Sadar, Shimla, H.P., as well as consequent proceedings, if any, pending adjudication in the

¶32

8

¶33

competent court of law are quashed and set aside. Accused is acquitted of the charges framed against him.

¶34

The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms,

¶35

alongwith all pending applications.

¶36

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

¶37

July 18, 2024 (sunil)

Manoj Sharma v. State of Hp and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Sharma 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

Meena Sharma Vs Viket Khachi

Mahender Singh Kaith Vs Narayan Singh

Ramesh kumar Vs Dharam Pal

Dinesh Kumar Sharma Vs State of Hp

Mohinder Singh Vs Chungi Lal Negi (Deceased through LRs Vinod Kumar Negi and Another)

Prashant Babbar Vs State of Hp and Another