Pradeep Kumar & Ors vs State Of H.P. & Others

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J

Instant petition has been moved under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of FIR No.26/2021 dated 06.06.2021, registered under Sections 341, 323, 504, 506, 188, 269, 270 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Kasauli, District Solan, H.P. as well as for setting aside consequent judicial proceedings pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Kasauli, District Solan in Case No. 3/2 of 2021 (State Vs. Pradeep and others). Aforesaid prayers have been made on the strength of a compromise alleged to have been executed between private parties.

FIR in question was got registered on the basis of complaint made by respondent No.3. The gist of the complaint was that a scuffle had taken place between her and the accused persons about use of water from a handpump. The complainant also alleged that the accused persons had used derogatory words against her, accordingly, Section 3(1)(r) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, was also inserted in the FIR, however, later as per the statement made by complainant/respondent No.3 under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the aforesaid section was removed.

A compromise deed dated 18.01.2023, executed between the petitioners and respondent No.3 (complainant), has been placed on record as Annexure P-1. This compromise deed 18.01.2023 has been affirmed by all the private parties viz the petitioners and respondent No.4 (complainant), who attended today’s hearing in person and have been identified by their respective learned counsel. In their separate statements recorded on oath today, the parties have reiterated the averments made in the said compromise and also identified their signatures thereupon. The accused persons as well as the complainant stated that compromise was executed by them out of their own free will and without any coercion. The complainant/respondent No.3 has specifically stated that she has no objection for quashing of the FIR and for setting aside the judicial proceedings arising from it. Accordingly, the petitioners have prayed for quashing of FIR in question and for setting aside resultant judicial proceedings.

Learned Deputy Advocate General has fairly submitted that he has no objection for allowing the prayer made in the petition.

The law laid down in respect of exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing or for refusing to quash the FIR and resultant proceedings on the basis of compromise effected by the parties in (2012) 10 SCC 303 titled Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab; (2014) 6 SCC 466 titled Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab; (2017) 9 SCC 641 titled as Parbatbhai Aahir vs. State of Gujarat, has been noticed again by Hon’ble Apex Court in (2019) 5 SCC 688 , titled as State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan with following observations:-

“ 15 . Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of this Court on the point, referred to hereinabove, it is observed and held as under:

15.1 That the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves;

15.2. Such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved 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;

15.3 Similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes like 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;

15.4 Offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act etc. would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal proceedings for the offence under Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act etc. which have a serious impact on the society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code, on the ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst themselves. 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 framing 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. However, such an exercise by the High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and the charge sheet is filed/charge is framed and/or during the trial. Such exercise is not permissible when the matter is still under investigation. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in paragraphs 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in the case of Narinder Singh (supra) should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove;

15.5 While exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non-compoundable offences, which are private in nature and do not have a serious impart on society, on the ground that there is a settlement/compromise between the victim and the offender, the High Court is required to consider the antecedents of the accused; the conduct of the accused, namely, whether the accused was absconding and why he was absconding, how he had managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise etc.”

Applying the above guidelines to the instant case, the statement made by respondent No.3 recorded on oath in this Court today (18.05.2023) and in view of the amicable settlement arrived at between the parties, no fruitful purpose will be served in continuing the proceedings in question. The present case because of its peculiar facts noticed above does not fall within the exceptions carved out by the Hon’ble Apex Court where amicable settlement arrived at between the parties cannot be acted upon for quashing the FIR and the consequent proceedings. The possibility of conviction in such circumstances would be very very remote. The continuation of the proceedings will be to the great detriment of the petitioners causing them unnecessary harassment and injustice. When the complainant does not want to hold the accused persons responsible, then quashing of such FIR would certainly be in the interest of justice.

Accordingly, the petition is allowed. FIR No.26/2021 dated 06.06.2021, registered under Sections 341, 323, 504, 506, 188, 269, 270 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Kasauli, District Solan, H.P., is quashed and consequent proceedings are set aside.

The petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending application(s), if any.