Vivek Singh Thakur DECISION
Vivek Singh Thakur, J.
1. Present petition has been preferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 21 of 2018 dated 9.3.2018, registered at P.S. Nirmand, Tehsil Nirmand, District Kullu (H.P.) under Sections 354(D) and 509 IPC lodged by respondent No. 2 and consequential proceedings initiated in pursuance thereto against the petitioner. Present petition has been fled on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.
2. On 16.9.2019, petitioner/accused Naresh Kumar and complainant/respondent No. 2 Seema Devi were present in person in Court, who were duly identified by their respective counsel, and on that day, statement of complainant Seema Devi was recorded on oath. Today, petitioner is present in person and his statement has also been recorded on oath.
3. Complainant Seema Devi in her statement after reiterating the incident, has stated that now the petitioner has apologized for his act and has undertaken not to repeat such activity in future and being a widow, she is not interested to attend the Court and as she has also forgiven the petitioner and agreed to compromise the dispute and accordingly, she is not interested in continuation of the proceedings on the basis of FIR lodged by her. She has admitted the signing of compromise placed on record with petition. However, she has not admitted the reasons stated therein with respect to lodging of complaint, rather she has re-affirmed by saying that she had reported to police, what had happened with her which has been recorded in FIR lodged by her. However, she has also stated that she had decided to compromise the case and therefore, she had agreed to prepare the compromise deed and had signed the same as it was prepared in order to close the matter. Lastly, she has categorically deposed that she had entered into the compromise, signed it and deposed in Court out of free will, consent and without any external pressure, coercion or threat of any kind.
4. The petitioner, present in Court today, has stated that on 16.9.2019 statement of complainant Smt. Seema Devi was recorded in his presence and he has heard the same and admit the same to be true and correct. He has stated that he has realized his mistake, but it was his first and last mistake as he has decided not to repeat such mistake and he has also apologized for his act to respondent No. 2 and has also undertaken not to repeat such activities with anyone and complainant has also forgiven him and has entered into compromise with him after agreeing to compromise the matter. It is also stated by him that he has apologized, entered into compromise and deposed in this Court today out of his free will and consent and also without any fear, threat, pressure or coercion.
5. It is contended on behalf of respondent-State that accused is not entitled to invoke inherent jurisdiction of this Court to exercise its power keeping in view the nature of offence committed by petitioner.
6. Three Judges Bench of the Apex Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Ors. reported in MANU/SC/0781/2012 : (2012) 10 SCC 303, explaining that High Court has inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with no statutory limitation including Section 320 Cr.P.C., has held that these powers are to be exercised to secure the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process of any Court and these powers can be exercised to quash criminal proceedings or complaint or FIR in appropriate cases where offender and victim have settled their dispute and for that purpose no definite category of offence can be prescribed. However, it is also observed that Courts must have due regard to nature and gravity of the crime and criminal proceedings in heinous and serious offences or offence like murder, rape and dacoity etc. should not be quashed despite victim or victim family have settled the dispute with offender. Jurisdiction vested in High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is held to be exercisable for quashing criminal proceedings in cases having overwhelming and predominatingly civil favour particularly offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil partnership, or such like transactions, or even offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry etc., family disputes or other such disputes where wrong is basically private or personal nature where parties mutually resolve their dispute amicably. It was also held that no category or cases for this purpose could be prescribed and each case has to be dealt with on its own merit but it is also clarified that this power does not extend to crimes against society.
7. The Apex Court in Parbatbhai Aahir alias Parbathbhai Bhimsinghbhai Karmur and others vs. State of Gujarat and another, MANU/SC/1241/2017 : (2017) 9 SCC 641 summarizing the broad principles regarding inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has recognized that these powers are not inhibited by provisions of Section 320 Cr.P.C.
8. The Apex Court in case Narinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and others reported in MANU/SC/0235/2014 : (2014) 6 SCC 466 and also in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan and others MANU/SC/0320/2019 : (2019) 5 SCC 688 has summed up and laid down principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with criminal proceedings.
9. No doubt Sections 354(d) of IPC is not compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C., however, as explained by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh's, Narinder Singh's Parbatbhai Aahir's and Laxmi Narayan's cases supra, power of High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not inhibited by the provisions of Section 320 Cr.P.C. and FIR as well as criminal proceedings can be quashed by exercising inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., if warranted in given facts and circumstances of the case for ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court, even in those cases which are not compoundable where parties have settled the matter between themselves.
10. Keeping in view the fact that complainant, who has appeared and endorsed the compromise arrived at with petitioner/accused, I find that it is a fit case to exercise power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and further even otherwise if criminal proceedings are allowed to continue, no fruitful purpose is going to be served.
11. In Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab, MANU/SC/1204/2008 : (2008) 4 SCC 582 the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasized and advised that in the matter of compromise in criminal proceedings, keeping in view of nature of this case, to save the time of the Court for utilizing to decide more effective and meaningful litigation, a commonsense approach, based on ground realities and bereft of the technicalities of law, should be applied.
12. Further, offence in question as alleged does not fall in the category of offences prohibited for compounding in terms of the pronouncements of the Apex Court by exercising power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. In view of statement of respondent No. 2/complainant recorded on oath in this Court, prayer of petitioner can be allowed.
13. Keeping in view nature and gravity of offence and considering facts and circumstances of the case in entirety, I am of the opinion that present petition deserves to be allowed for ends of justice and the same is allowed accordingly and FIR No. 21 of 2018 dated 9.3.2018 registered at Police Station, Nirmand, District Kullu, H.P. is quashed. Consequent to quashing of FIR, criminal proceedings i.e. Case No. 142 of 2018, titled as State of H.P. vs. Naresh Kumar pending before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur Bushehr, Shimla, initiated in pursuance to the aforesaid FIR, are also quashed.
14. Petition stands disposed of in above terms.
© Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.