CRMMO/221/2014 on 29 December 2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

SHIMLA

Cr.MMO No. 221 of 2014

Date of Decision: 29.12.2016

Kunal Rao & others.

…..Petitioners

Versus State of H.P & another

….Respondents.

Coram:

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sureshwar Thakur, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?1

For the petitioners: Mr. Pawan K Sharma, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Mr. Vivek Singh Attri, Deputy Advocate General for respondent No.1.

Respondent No.2 in person.

Sureshwar Thakur, J (oral)

The instant petition stands instituted at the instance of the petitioners under Section 482 of Cr.P.C for seeking relief qua quashing of FIR No. 240/2008 of 10.9.2008 registered with police Station, Sadar, Shimla wherein the petitioners herein are alleged to commit offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406 readwith 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

…2…

Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Besides a prayer has been made therein qua criminal proceeding in consequence therewith launched against the petitioners herein and pending before the court concerned being also ordered to be quashed and set aside.

2. During the pendency of the petition before this Court, respondent No.2 in her statement recorded on oath, before this Court duly reduced into writing and signatured by her, has in tandem with the compromise entered inter se her and the accused/petitioners, made a disclosure therein qua an amicable settlement standing arrived inter-se her vis-à-vis them qua all the dispute(s) arising inter-se her vis-à-vis the petitioners herein. She has also therein proceeded to unveil qua hers holding no objection in case the instant petition preferred by the petitioners before this Court for quashing of FIR No. 240 of 2008 of 10.9.2008 registered at police station Sadar, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh standing accepted. Given the statement on oath of the respondent No.2/complainant besides, given the compromise ad idem comprised in Ex.P-

…3…

4 appended to the petition at hand, arrived at qua the relevant offences inter se the petitioners/accused and respondent No.2/the complainant, this Court accepts the instant petition.

3. Even though some of the offences constituted in the FIR are non-compoundable, however, in the light of the verdict of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in Narinder Singh and others versus State of Punjab and another, (2014)6 SCC 466 , relevant paragraph 11 whereof stands extracted hereinafter, whereupon this Court holds leverage to quash an FIR besides consequential proceedings launched in pursuance thereof even when some of the offences recorded therein are non compoundable, especially to prevent abuse of process of Court or to secure the ends of justice, besides when in the face of a settlement arrived at inter se the accused and respondent No.2/complainant qua the relevant offence(s),render bleak the chances of the accused suffering conviction. Paragraph No.11 of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:- “

11. As to under what circumstances the criminal proceedings in a non compoundable case be quashed

…4…

when there is a settlement between the parties, the Court provided the following guidelines: (Gian Singh v.State of Punjab, (2012)10 SCC 303):-“

58. Where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that the dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled although the offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put on an end and peace is resorted; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. No doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful effect on the public and consist in wrongdoing that seriously endangers and threats the well being of the society and it is not safe to leave the crime- doer only because he and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the victim has been paid compensation, yet certain crimes have been made compoundable in law, with or without the permission of the Court. In respect of serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., or other offences of mental depravity under IPC or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by the public servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between the offender and the victim can have no legal sanction at all. However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions of the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc., or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to the victim and the offender and the victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences

…5…

have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or FIR if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated. The above list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Each case will depend on its own facts and no hard-and-fast category can be prescribed.””

4. Consequently, with a settlement comprised in Ext.P-4 standing arrived at inter se the petitioners herein and respondent No.2, constrains, this Court to hence conclude qua even if some of the offences constituted in the FIR are non compoundable yet to secure the ends of justice besides to preclude the petitioners/accused being subjected to the harassment and humiliation of facing trial significantly when respondent No.2/complainant under the her statement recorded on oath, duly reduced into writing and signatured by her, communicated qua hers not intending to prosecute the accused/petitioners herein, whereupon the compromise/settlement arrived at inter se respondent No. 2 and the petitioner(s), warrants imputation of reverence thereon by this Court. Moreover,

…6…

what further prods this Court to revere the settlement arrived at inter se the petitioners and respondent No.2 is comprised in the fact of respondent No.2/the complainant/victim of the offences being uninterested in prosecuting the accused, resultantly when obviously the chances of the petitioners/accused suffering conviction are rendered bleak/remote, factum whereof qua the remoteness and bleakness of the petitioner/accused suffering conviction stands expostulated in the relevant paragraph 11 of the verdict of the Hon'ble Apex Court to constitute a relevant and guiding parameter for accepting the settlement arrived at inter se the petitioners/accused and respondent No.2, even when some of the offences are non compoundable, as in this case. Resultantly, when the said parameter expostulated in the relevant paragraph 11 of the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court which stands extracted hereinabove, has for the reasons aforesaid begotten satiation, satiation thereof prods this Court to accept the settlement arrived at inter se the petitioners and

…7…

respondent No.2. Consequently, the petition is allowed and FIR No.240 of 2008 of 10.9.2008 wherein the petitioners herein are alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 406, 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station, Sadar, Shimla, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh is quashed. In sequel, the consequential criminal proceedings arising therefrom and pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Forest), District Shimla are also quashed and set aside. However the aforesaid order shall be subject to the petitioners meteing compliance with the statement recorded herebefore by their counsel, failure whereof shall result in revival of the proceedings pending before the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Forest), District Shimla. H.P. All the pending applications also stand disposed of. 29th December, 2016 ( Sureshwar Thakur ), (priti)

Judge.