K.K. Verma vs State Of H.P And Others

Vivek Singh Thakur, J

Instant petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.PC’) has been filed by petitioner K.K. Verma, on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-1) arrived at between him and respondent No.2-complainant, for quashing of FIR No.114, dated 12.08.2021, registered in Police Station Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P. under Sections 354(D), 504, 506 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’) and consequent proceedings arising thereto.

On 03.01.2022 complainant-respondent No.2 was present in the Court, who was identified by Mr.Naveen Awasthi, Advocate, representing her, and her statement, on oath, was recorded separately.

On 02.03.2022, petitioner -K.K. Verma was present in the Court, who was duly identified by Mr.Shivam Gautam, learned counsel appearing under instructions of original counsel Mr.Lovneesh Kanwar, Advocate, and his statement on oath was also recorded separately in the Court.

In her statement, complainant-respondent No.2 has stated that FIR was lodged by her after the incident, referred in FIR and now matter of controversy has been amicably settled with petitioner for efforts of elders, relatives and respected people of society, and for cordial and peaceful life of both the parties in future, she has agreed to withdraw the complaint filed against the petitioner. She has further stated that as a matter of fact, wife of petitioner, in relation, is sister of her husband and both of them are serving in Government job in the same Department i.e. H.P. Health Department and petitioner’s wife is resident of her matrimonial village. She has also stated that petitioner has also expressed remorse for any act which might have been construed by her as an offence for lodging the FIR and considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and explanation given by the petitioner, she has decided to withdraw the complaint and has signed the compromise deed and she has verified the contents of compromise and her signatures thereon. She has further stated that she has deposed and has compromised the matter out of her free will, consent and without threat, coercion or pressure etc.

In his statement, petitioner-K.K. Verma has stated that statement of complainant was recorded in his presence on 3. 01.2022 and has endorsed the same to be true and correct. For settlement of the matter, as deposed by complainant-respondent No.2, he has prayed for quashing of FIR. He has also identified and endorsed his signatures on compromise (Annexure P-1). He has further stated that he has signed the Compromise Deed and deposed in the Court out of his free will, consent and without any external pressure, coercion or threat of any kind.

It is contended on behalf of respondent No.1-State that petitioner-accused 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 flavour 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 Parbhathbhai Bhimsinghbhai 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 Section 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.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 Cr.PC, 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.

Now, the matter has been amicably settled between the private parties on the basis of compromise arrived at between them, as such, I am of the considered view that no fruitful purpose shall be served to continue the proceedings against petitioner.

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.114 of 2021, dated 12.08.2021, registered in Police Station Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P., is quashed. Consequent to quashing of FIR, criminal proceedings initiated against petitioner-accused person in pursuance thereto, are also quashed.

Petition stands disposed of in above terms.

Parties are permitted to produce a copy of this order, downloaded from the web-page of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, before the authorities concerned, and the said authorities shall not insist for production of a certified copy but if required, may verify it from Website of the High Court.