Keshav Lal vs State Of Himachal Pradesh

Sandeep Sharma, J

By way of instant criminal revision petition filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C, challenge has been laid to judgment dated 4.12.2013 passed

by the learned Sessions Judge, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P., in Criminal Appeal No.4 of 2012, affirming the judgment of conviction and order of

sentence dated 28.12.2011/16.1.2012, passed by Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Court No.2, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P., in Police challan No.67-

II/2006, whereby learned Court below while holding accused-petitioner guilty for having committed the offence punishable under sections 279 of IPC

convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month and simple imprisonment for three months for having

committed the offence punishable under section 338 of IPC.

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment dated 28.12.2011 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No.2, Mandi,

H.P., accused-petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C before the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Mandi, but same was also

dismissed vide judgment dated 4.12.2013, as a consequence of which, judgment of conviction recorded by learned Court below came to be upheld. In

the aforesaid background, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for his acquittal after setting aside the

judgments of conviction recorded by learned Courts below.

During the pendency of the present petition, an application bearing Cr.MP(M) No.1371 of 2020 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., placing therewith

compromise deed, came to be filed on behalf of the petitioner-accused, wherein he prayed that in view of the compromise arrived interse parties, FIR

as well as judgment of conviction recorded by the courts below may be quashed and set-aside.

On 29.9.2020, this Court having perused the contents of the compromise placed on record, deemed it necessary to cause presence of injured/victim

in the Court, so that factum with regard to compromise, if any, interse parties could be ascertained. Besides above, this Court also directed learned

Additional Advocate General to verify the factum with regard to compromise, if any, from the police station concerned. Pursuant to order dated

29.9.2020, parties have come present. Injured/victim Sh. Shukardin, who is present in Court on oath states that he of his own volition and without there

being any external pressure have entered into the compromise( Annexure) A-1 with the present petitioner with a view to maintain cordial relation with

each other. He states that he has no objection in case the FIR lodged at the behest of the complainant as well as judgments passed by learned Courts

below are quashed and set-aside in view of the amicable settlement arrived interse parties and the petitioner-accused is acquitted of the charges

framed against him. He further states that compromise placed on record is genuine and it bears his signature. His statement is taken on record.

Learned Additional Advocate General has also placed on record communication dated 9.10.2020 received from the office of Superintendent of

Police Mandi, enclosing therewith copy of compromise arrived interse parties as well as statement of the victim/injured, perusal whereof clearly

reveals that petitioner-accused has entered into the compromise with the victim/injured, whereby both have resolved to settle their dispute amicably

interse them. Aforesaid communication is taken on record.

After having heard the aforesaid statement of victim/injured made on oath before this Court, learned Additional Advocate General fairly contends

that no fruitful purpose would be served in case FIR as well as consequent proceedings are allowed to sustain and as such, respondent-State shall

have no objection in case the prayer made in the petition is allowed.

Having carefully perused the record as well as statement having been made by the victim/injured, this Court sees substantial force in the prayer

having been made by the petitioner-accused for compounding the offence. Since the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement, without there

being any pressure or influence on the victim/injured, this Court deems it fit to consider the prayer made in the application filed under Section 482

Cr.P.C, bearing No.1371 of 2020 for compounding the offences, in the light of the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Narinder Singh and

others versus State of Punjab and another (2014)6 Supreme Court Cases 466, whereby 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 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 the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not

compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be as under:-

In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate

treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising 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 the criminal proceedings:

29.1Power 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 the criminal proceedings even in those

cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly

and with caution.

29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such

cases would be to secure:

(i) ends of justice, or

(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court.

While exercising the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.

29.3. Such a power is not be exercised in those prosecutions 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. Similarly, for offences alleged to have been

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.

29.4. On the other, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial

transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among

themselves.

29.5. While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of

criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal

cases.

29.6. Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore is to be generally treated as crime

against the society and not against the individual alone. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of

Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of

Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to proving the charge under

Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the

vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc. Medical report in respect of injuries suffered by the victim can generally be the guiding

factor. On the basis of this prima facie analysis, the High Court can examine as to whether there is a strong possibility of conviction or the chances of

conviction are remote and bleak. In the former case it can refuse to accept the settlement and quash the criminal proceedings whereas in the later

case it would be permissible for the High Court to accept the plea compounding the offence based on complete settlement between the parties. At this

stage, the Court can also be swayed by the fact that the settlement between the parties is going to result in harmony between them which may

improve their future relationship.

29.7. While deciding whether to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code or not, timings of settlement play a crucial role. Those cases where

the settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged commission of offence and the matter is still under investigation, the High Court may be

liberal in accepting the settlement to quash the criminal proceedings/investigation. It is because of the reason that at this stage the investigation is still

on and even the charge sheet has not been filed. Likewise, those cases where the charge is framed but the evidence is yet to start or the evidence is

still at infancy stage, the High Court can show benevolence in exercising its powers favourably, but after prima facie assessment of the

circumstances/material mentioned above. On the other hand, where the prosecution evidence is almost complete or after the conclusion of the

evidence the matter is at the stage of argument, normally the High Court should refrain from exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code, as in

such cases the trial court would be in a position to decide the case finally on merits and to come a conclusion as to whether the offence under Section

307 IPC is committed or not. Similarly, in those cases where the conviction is already recorded by the trial court and the matter is at the appellate

stage before the High Court, mere compromise between the parties would not be a ground to accept the same resulting in acquittal of the offender

who has already been convicted by the trial court. Here charge is proved under Section 307 IPC and conviction is already recorded of a heinous crime

and, therefore, there is no question of sparing a convict found guilty of such a crimeâ€​.

The Hon’ble Apex Court in case Gian Singh v.State of Punjab and anr. (2012) 10 SCC 303 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 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 in Dimpey Gujral and Ors. vs. Union Territory through Administrator, UT,

Chandigarh and Ors. (2013( 11 SCC 497 has also held as under:-

 “7. In certain decisions of this Court in view of the settlement arrived at by the parties, this Court quashed the FIRs though some of the offences

were non-compoundable. A two Judges’ Bench of this court doubted the correctness of those decisions. Learned Judges felt that in those

decisions, this court had permitted compounding of non-compoundable offences. The said issue was, therefore, referred to a larger bench.

The larger Bench in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 considered the relevant provisions of the Code and the judgments of this court

and concluded as under: (SCC pp. 342-43, para 61)

The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or

FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences

under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline

engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the

criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and

circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the

nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and se serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to

the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc;

cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-

dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial,

mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the

wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash

criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and

continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the

criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be

unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to

abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is

appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its

jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.â€​ (emphasis supplied)

In the light of the above observations of this court in Gian Singh, we feel that this is a case where the 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. They are offences of a personal nature and burying them would bring about peace and amity between the two sides. In the circumstances of

the case, FIR No. 163 dated 26.10.2006 registered under Section 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 452 and 506 of the IPC at Police Station Sector 3,

Chandigarh and all consequential proceedings arising there from including the final report presented under Section 173 of the Code and charges

framed by the trial Court are hereby quashed.â€​

In the aforesaid case, Hon’ble Apex Court specifically observed that “this is a case where the 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. They are offences of a personal nature and burying them would bring about peace and amity between the two sides.†In the instant case

also, the victim was aggrieved on account of injury suffered by him due to accident allegedly caused by rash and negligent driving of the petitioner

accused and offences are of purely personal nature and in no manner, they are against society. Apart from above, it clearly emerges from the

statement of victim/injured that as of today parties have amicably settled the matter inter-se them. Victim/injured has categorically stated before this

Court that he has entered into a compromise with the petitioner-accused of his own free will and accord, without any pressure or influence of any kind

whatsoever and as such, he does not wish to prosecute the case any further. Hence this Court after hearing the complainant as well as submissions

made in the application filed under Section 482 is of the view that instant matter can be ordered to be compounded while exercising power under

Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

Consequently, in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, wherein parties have compromised the matter at hand, this Court

deems it fit to exercise its power under Section 482 Cr.PC and accordingly, the FIR lodged at the behest of the complainant (i.e. FIR No229 of 2006

dated 8.6.2006 under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC, registered at PS Sadar, District Mandi, H.P.) as well as consequent proceedings i.e. the judgments

passed by learned courts below, are also quashed and set-aside.

Accordingly, the petition is allowed and petitioner-accused is acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 338 of the IPC in terms

of the aforesaid settlement arrived interse petitioner and the victim/injured. Fine amount, if any, deposited, be refunded to the petitioner. Petition stands

disposed of, so also pending applications, if any.