Ajay Kumar vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Others

Vivek Singh Thakur, J

This petition has been preferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.PC'), by petitioner Ajay Kumar for quashing of FIR No.99 of 2018 dated 06.06.2018, registered in Police Station Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P., under Sections 419, 420, 467, 120-B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC' in short) and subsequent proceedings pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class-II, Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P.

Respondent No. 2-complainant, Veena Parmar is present in the Court today and has endorsed the compromise, in her statement recorded on oath in this Court. She has deposed that matter has been amicably settled with petitioner Ajay Kumar and respondents No.3 to 5 namely Manoj Sharma, Ajay Kumar and Shamsher Singh Jamwal, who are the co-accused. She has further stated that main dispute was with petitioner Ajay Kumar, which has been settled amicably and reduced into compromise deed. As per compromise she has agreed for compounding of present criminal case and also to withdraw Civil Suit No.72/2012, titled as Veena Parmar vs. Ajay Kumar, pending before learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P., filed by her. She has endorsed the compromise and her signatures thereon and has prayed that petition be decided on the basis of compromise deed. She has further stated that she has entered into compromise and deposed in this Court, out of her free will, consent and without any external pressure, coercion or threat of any kind.

Petitioner-Ajay Kumar, is also present today in the Court and his statement has also been recorded on oath, wherein he has endorsed the statement made by complainant as also the compromise and signatures there on. He has further stated that he has endorsed the compromise and his signatures thereon. He has further stated that he has entered into compromise and has deposed in this Court out of his free will, consent and without any external pressure, coercion or threat of any kind.

It is contended on behalf of the respondent-State that petitioner is not entitled to invoke inherent jurisdiction of this Court to exercise its power on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties with respect to an offence not compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C.

Three Judges Bench of the Apex Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Ors. reported in (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.PC, 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.PC is held to be exercisable for quashing criminal proceedings in cases having overwhelming and predominatingly civil flavor 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.

The Apex Court in Parbatbhai Aahir alias Parbathbhai Bhimsingbhai Karmur and others vs. State of Gujarat and another, (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.

The Apex Court in case Narinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and others reported in (2014)6 SCC 466 and also in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan and others (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.

No doubt Sections 467 and 120-B of IPC are not compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C. However, as explained by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh's, Narinder Singh's and Laxmi Narayan's cases supra, power of High Court under Section 482 Cr.PC is not inhibited by the provisions of Section 320 CrPC and FIR as well as criminal proceedings can be quashed by exercising inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC, 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.

In Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab, (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.

In peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, I am of the considered opinion that interest of justice shall be served in quashing the FIR as well as subsequent proceedings arising thereto. Accordingly, FIR No. 99 of 2018 dated 6. 06.2018, registered in Police Station, Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P., is quashed. Consequent to quashing of aforesaid FIR, criminal proceedings initiated in pursuance thereto, are also quashed.

So far as Civil Suit No.72 of 2012 referred supra is concerned, the same shall be treated as withdrawn on placing copy of this order on record of the trial Court or may be withdrawn by plaintiff (respondent No.2 herein) herself or through her counsel.

The compromise deed shall form part of this judgment.

Petition stands disposed of in above terms.