High Court of Himachal Pradesh

Harsh Anand Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.

MANU/HP/0643/2020

04.08.2020

Criminal

High Court has inherent power to quash criminal proceedings even in cases which are not compoundable and where the parties have settled the matter between themselves

By way of present petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), prayer has been made on behalf of the Petitioner for quashing and setting aside FIR under Section 380 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) registered at Police Station alongwith consequential proceedings pending before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, on the basis of compromise entered inter se Petitioner and Respondent No. 3.

The FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings, on basis that, before the criminal proceedings pending before learned Court below could be taken to its logical end, Petitioner entered into compromise with Respondent No. 3, whereby both the parties resolved to settle their dispute amicably inter se them.

At this stage, it would be relevant take note of the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Narinder Singh and others versus State of Punjab and another, 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. The Hon'ble Apex Court has returned the findings that, power conferred under Section 482 of the CrPC is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the CrPC. No doubt, under Section 482 of the CrPC, 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.

Careful perusal 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.

In the case at hand also, offence alleged to have been committed by the Petitioner does not involve offence of moral turpitude or any grave/heinous crime, rather same is a petty offence, as such, present 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.

Prayer made in the petition can be accepted. Consequently, in view of the facts of present case as well as law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, FIR under Section 380 of IPC registered at Police Station alongwith consequential proceedings pending before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, is quashed. Petitioner is acquitted of the charges framed against him in the said FIR/proceedings. Petition disposed off.

Relevant

Narinder Singh and others versus State of Punjab and another MANU/SC/0235/2014

Tags : FIR Compromise Quashing of

Share :