Allowed¶27

Jitender Singh and Another v. State of Hp and Another

Himachal Pradesh HC2 Jul 2024CRMMO/294/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 482 CrPC quashing of FIR on inter se compromise; FIR No.003 of 2022, PS Sujanpur, District Hamirpur, H.P.; Section 379 IPC petty offence (theft of mixture machine); Narinder Singh (2014) 6 SCC 466 paras 29-29.7 guidelines distinguishing S.482 power from S.320 compounding; Gian Singh (2012) 10 SCC 303; Dimpey Gujral (2013) 11 SCC 497; Parbatbhai Aahir (2017) Criminal Appeal No.1723 of 2017; acquittal of accused after settlement; complainant's sworn statement of no objection; High Court of Himachal Pradesh; Justice Sandeep Sharma; Cr.MMO No.294 of 2024; decided 02.07.2024.

What did the court decide?

FIR No.003 of 2022 (05.01.2022, Section 379 IPC, PS Sujanpur, District Hamirpur, H.P.) and consequent proceedings quashed and set aside; accused acquitted; petition disposed of along with all pending applications. ¶27

Jitender Singh and Another Vs State of Hp and Another — Himachal Pradesh HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether the FIR in question can be ordered to be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C on the basis of the inter se compromise, given the Hon'ble Apex Court's position in Narinder Singh that this power is not to be exercised in cases involving heinous and serious offences of mental depravity.

¶16

Court's answer

The offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioners do not involve moral turpitude or any grave/heinous crime; they are petty offences, and therefore this Court deemed it appropriate to quash the FIR and consequential proceedings.

¶24

Ratio / Principle

Since the petitioners and the complainant have compromised the matter inter se, the possibility of conviction is remote and no fruitful purpose would be served in continuing with the criminal proceedings.

¶26

Key takeaways

FIR No.003 of 2022, dated 05.01.2022, under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Sujanpur, District Hamirpur, H.P., as well as consequent proceedings, if any, pending adjudication in the competent court of law, are quashed and set aside.ratio¶27
The accused are acquitted of the charges framed against them.ratio¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla (Sandeep Sharma, Judge), Cr.MMO No.294 of 2024, decided 02.07.2024: Petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of FIR No.003 of 2022 (dated 05.01.2022, Police Station Sujanpur, District Hamirpur, H.P.), charging the petitioners under Section 379 IPC with theft of a mixture machine, together with consequent proceedings, was allowed on the basis of an inter se compromise. Respondent No.2/complainant Bheem Singh stated on oath that the machine had been returned, he had been compensated for the damage, and he had no objection to quashing; the Additional Advocate General conceded that no fruitful purpose would be served in continuing the proceedings. Finding the alleged offences petty and free of moral turpitude or grave/heinous character, and relying on the Apex Court guidelines in Narinder Singh (2014) 6 SCC 466, Gian Singh (2012) 10 SCC 303, Dimpey Gujral (2013) 11 SCC 497 and Parbatbhai Aahir (Criminal Appeal No.1723 of 2017), the Court quashed and set aside the FIR and consequent proceedings and acquitted the accused; the petition was disposed of along with all pending applications.

¶1

2024:HHC:4351

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

Cr.MMO No.294 of 2024 Date of Decision: 02.07.2024

¶4

______________________________________________________________ Jitender Singh & Anr. …….Petitioners Versus State of HP & Anr. … Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹ For the Petitioners: Mr. Vinod Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar & Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocate Generals, for respondent No.1-State. Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate, for respondent No.2. ______________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

¶5

By way of instant petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioners for quashing of FIR No.003 of 2022 (Annexure P-1) , dated 05.01.2022, under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Sujanpur, District Hamirpur, 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 (Annexure P-2) , whereby they have resolved to settle their dispute amicably inter se them.

¶6

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

¶7

¶8

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-complainant No. 2 Sh. Bheem Singh (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘complainant’), who alleged that on 02.01.2022 at about 09:00 a.m. he after having purchased mixture machine from R.K. Enterprises Sai Chowk Batran, Tehsil Nadaun, parked the same on the road side nearby Hyundai Service Centre Bhaleth, but on 05.01.2022 at about 12:00 noon mixture was missing. Police after lodging of FIR sought to be quashed conducted investigation, found that petitioners herein had stolen mixture machine. In the aforesaid background, FIR, as detailed herein above, came to be lodged against the petitioners under relevant provisions of Indian Penal Code.

¶9

Though, after completion of investigation, Police has already presented challan in the competent court of law, but before the same could be taken to its logical end, complainant and petitioners-accused named in the FIR have entered into compromise, whereby they have resolved to settle their dispute amicably interse them and as such, petitioners-accused have 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.

¶10

Pursuant to notices issued in the instant proceedings, respondent-State has filed status report, which is silent about the

¶11

¶12

compromise, if any, arrived interse parties. Respondent No. 2 as well as petitioners-accused have also come present. Respondent No. 2, who is being represented by Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate, states on oath that he of his own volition and without any external pressure has entered into compromise with the petitioners-accused, whereby both the parties have resolved to settle their dispute amicably interse them. He states that petitioner No. 1 Jitender Singh was his driver. He states that on the date of alleged incident petitionersaccused have unauthorizedly removed the mixture from the spot, where it was parked, but subsequently the same was returned to him. He states that he has been duly compensated qua the damage caused to the mixture. He states that FIR sought to be quashed is a result of misunderstanding and since petitioners-accused have already apologized for their misbehaviour and further undertaken not to repeat such act in future, he shall have no objection in case, prayer made on behalf of petitioners-accused for quashing of FIR is accepted. His statement is taken on record.

¶13

After having heard aforesaid statement made on oath by respondent No. 2, Mr.B.C.Verma, 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 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 petitioners-accused are very remote and bleak on account of statement of

¶14

¶15

complainant made on oath and as such, this court may proceed to pass appropriate orders.

¶16

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?

¶17

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 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

¶18

¶19

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

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.

¶21

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

¶22

¶23

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. 10. 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.

¶24

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

¶25

¶26

thereto, especially keeping in view the fact that the petitioners and complainant 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.

¶27

Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court (supra), FIR No.003 of 2022, dated 05.01.2022, under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Sujanpur, District Hamirpur, H.P., as well as consequent proceedings, if any, pending adjudication in the competent court of law are quashed and set aside. Accused are acquitted of the charges framed against them.

¶28

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

¶29

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

¶30

July 02, 2024 (sunil)

Jitender Singh and Another v. State of Hp and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jitender Singh and Another 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

Siddharth Vs State of Hp

Tarsem Lal Vs Bhupinder Singh

Manjeet Thakur Vs Shri Ram City Union Finance

Sat Pal Vs State of Hp

Aupama Gupta Vs Pankaj Goel

Madhu Sudan Vs Mithun Singh