Prashant Babbar Vs State of Hp and Another

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CrMMO No. 388 of 2024 Date of Decision: 18.7.2024

_______________________ Prashant Babbar State of Himachal Pra	______________________________________________ ……...Petitioner Versus desh and Anr. …....Respondents
Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sa Whether approved for	ndeep Sharma, Judge. reporting?
For the Petitioner:	Mr.Naresh K. Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondents: _________________________	Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for the State. Mr.Pankaj Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.2. __________________________________________________

¶4

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

¶5

By way of instant petition, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for quashing of FIR No.07, dated 29.2.2024, under Sections 354-A and 509 of IPC, registered with Women Police Station Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh, as well as consequent proceedings, if any, pending before the court below, on the basis of compromise/amicable settlement arrived inter-se parties.

¶6

2. Precisely, the case of the petitioner, as emerges from the pleadings is that the FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings

¶7

2

¶8

came to be lodged at the behest of respondent No.2 (hereinafter, ‘complainant’), who alleged that while she was working as Operation Theatre Technician at AIIMS Bilaspur, petitioner, who was Doctor in Anesthesia Department, attempted to abuse her sexually at the work place. She alleged that initially the petitioner tried to be overfriendly, but subsequently, started behaving indecently. She alleged that on many occasions, doctor named herein above, attempted to sexually assault her by doing undesirable things. On the basis of aforesaid complaint, disciplinary proceedings were also initiated against the accused, but before same could be taken to its logical end, petitioner resigned from his job and started practicing at Gangangar, Rajasthan. Though after completion of the investigation, police presented challan in the competent court of law, but before same could be taken to its logical end, petitioner and respondent No.2-complainant, have resolved to settle their dispute amicably inter-se them. In the aforesaid background, petitioner-accused has approached this court in the instant proceedings, for quashing of FIR as well as consequent proceedings pending before the competent court of law.

¶9

3. This court with a view to ascertain the correctness of compromise, if any, arrived inter-se parties, specifically called upon the respondent-State to file status report/reply and besides above, this Court

¶10

3

¶11

also called upon the parties, especially respondent-complainant to come present in the Court. Respondent-State has filed status report, which is silent about the compromise. Prayer made by the petitioner-accused has been seriously opposed by the respondent-State on the ground that petitioner is accused of heinous crime and as such, he does not deserve any leniency.

¶12

4. Respondent No.2 complainant has also come present and is being represented by Mr. Pankaj Thakur, Advocate. She states on oath that she of her own volition and without there being any external pressure, has entered into compromise with the petitioner, whereby they have resolved to settle their dispute amicably. She deposed that since FIR in question is result of mis-understanding coupled with the fact that petitioner has already apologized for his misbehavior and has undertaken not to repeat such mistake in future, she does not wish to prosecute the case further and shall have no objection in case FIR as well as consequent proceedings initiated at her behest, are quashed and set-aside and the accused is acquitted of the charges framed against him. While admitting the contents of the compromise to be correct, she also admits her signatures on the same. Her statement is taken on record.

¶13

4

¶14

5. Having heard the statement made on oath by respondent No.2-

¶15

complainant, Mr. B.C. Verma, learned Additional Advocate General states that though complainant has compromised the matter, but keeping in view the gravity of offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner, he does not deserve any leniency, rather needs to be dealt with in accordance with law. He states that accepting the prayer in such like cases, may not send the right message to the society, but it is also not in dispute that chances of conviction of the petitioner are very remote and bleak on account of statement made on oath by the respondent before this Court.

¶16

6. 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 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.

¶17

7. 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

¶18

5

¶19

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

8. 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,

¶21

6

¶22

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.

¶23

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

¶24

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 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

¶25

in Dimpey Gujral and Ors . vs. Union Territory through Administrator,

¶26

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

¶27

7

¶28

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

¶29

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.

¶30

11. Since parties have compromised the matter with each other and respondent No.2-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 sees no impediment in accepting the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for quashing of the FIR alongwith all consequential proceedings. 12. Though offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioner involve offences of moral turpitude, but since compromise has been arrived inter-se parties, possibility of conviction of the petitioner is remote/bleak and no fruitful purpose would be served in continuing with the criminal proceedings, especially when parties have compromised the

¶31

8

¶32

matter and respondent is no more interested in pursuing the criminal proceedings against the petitioner.

¶33

13. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court (supra), FIR No.07, dated 29.2.2024, under Sections 354-A and 509 of IPC, registered with Women Police Station Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, H.P., as well as consequent proceedings, if any, pending before the court below, are quashed and set aside. Accused is acquitted of the charges framed against him. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms, alongwith all pending applications.

¶34

July 18, 2024 (manjit)

¶35

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

Prashant Babbar v. State of Hp and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prashant Babbar 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

Manoj Sharma Vs State of Hp and Another

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