CRMMO/331/2020 of VIJAY THAKUR AND ORS Vs STATE OF HP on 31 December 2021

O R D E R

By way of instant petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioners for quashing of FIR No.89 of 2009, dated 6.6.2009, under Sections 403, 406, 120-B of IPC, registered at police Station, Barsar, District Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh as well as consequent proceedings i.e. Criminal Appeal No.76 of 2017, pending adjudication in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, H.P., on the basis of the compromise arrived interse parties.

2. Precisely, the facts of the case as emerge from the record are that FIR, sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings, came to be lodged at the behest of petitioner No.4, Smt. Kalpna Devi, who alleged that in the year 1997, her cousin i.e. accused/ petitioner No.2, Jagvir Singh pursued her to deposit some amount in a private finance company in the name and style of Baba Balak Nath Finance Limited, having its head office at place Mehre (Barsar). Complainant alleged that accused told her that money deposited by her shall be doubled in four years. Complainant alleged that on 21.12.1997 her cousin brother/accused Jagvir Singh again pursued her to deposit money and as such, she brought money from her matrimonial house and deposited sum of Rs.50,000/- in the said finance company, which was invested in the shape of FDR

No.000424, dated 1.12.1997 and maturity value of the same was shown to be as Rs.1,00,000/-. She alleged that receipt qua aforesaid amount was signed by accused Sita Ram Changra as accountant and accused Vijay Kumar as MD (petitioners No.1 and 3). She alleged that subsequently she also deposited a sum of Rs.15,000/- in the name of her newly born baby on the request of petitioner/accused No.2, Jagvir Singh. She stated that though baby expired within one month, but she received Rs. 15,000/- with interest after a gap of two years. Complainant, as named hereinabove, disclosed to the police that though she requested accused Jagvir Singh to return sum of Rs. 50,000/-, but he stated that she would suffer loss in case withdraws the amount before time. Thereafter, accused took back the original receipt of Rs. 50,000/- on the pretext that the FD of complainant is going to be matured. Pursuant to aforesaid complaint, police lodged the FIR, sought to be quashed, and carried out the investigation and found that petitioner No.5, Smt. Namita Devi had also invested some amount on the askance of petitioner/accused No.2, Jagvir Singh, but she was also not returned the aforesaid amount. After completion of the investigation, police presented the challan in the competent court of law. 3.Learned Judicial Magistrate 1[st] Class, Barsar, District Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh vide judgment dated 18.11.2017, held petitioners/accused No.1 to 3 guilty of having committed the offence punishable under sections 406, 403, 120-B of IPC and accordingly convicted and sentenced them as per the description given hereinbelow:-

4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment of conviction and order of sentence recorded by learned trial Court, petitioner/accused No.1 to 3, preferred an appeal in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, H.P., which came to be registered as Criminal Appeal No.76 of 2017, but before same could be decided on its own merit, petitioners No.4 and 5 at whose instance FIR sought to be quashed came to be instituted, filed an application under Section 321 Cr.P.C., for withdrawal from the prosecution of FIR No.89 of 2009 on the ground that they have received their due amount and do not wish to prosecute the case further. However, such application was rejected, as is evident from communication dated 26.7.2019, wherein Deputy Magistrate apprised petitioners No.4 and 5 that their application was sent to District Attorney and Superintendent of Police, Hamirpur, but both the authorities has opined that the case is not fit for withdrawal and as such, prayer made in the application for withdrawal of prosecution cannot be accepted. In the aforesaid background, during the pendency of the criminal appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, H.P., petitioners No.1 to 3, who are accused and petitioners No.4 and 5, who are complainants, approached this Court by way of joint application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C, for quashment of FIR as well as consequent proceedings i.e. Cr. Appeal No.76 of 2017 pending in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, H.P. 5.Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, respondent-State has filed reply, wherein prayer made in the instant petition for quashment of FIR as well as consequent proceedings has been opposed on the ground that petitioners/accused No. 1 to 3 have already stand convicted for their having committed the offence punishable under sections 403, 406 and 120-B of IPC and as such, this Court while exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C has no power to quash the FIR as well as judgment of conviction and order of sentence. Besides above, it has been further stated in the reply that otherwise also offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioners No.1 to 3 cannot be quashed 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. Since

petitioners have specifically claimed before this Court that entire sum allegedly taken from petitioners No.4 and 5, at whose instance FIR sought to be quashed came to be instituted, stand returned to them and they had filed an application for withdrawal of prosecution, this Court deemed it necessary to direct Superintendent of Police, Hamirpur to verify factum with regard to compromise, if any, arrived interse petitioners No.1 to 3 and petitioners No.4 and 5. This court vide order dated 18.08.2021 also directed aforesaid authority to verify whether entire amount allegedly taken by petitioners No. 1 to 3 from petitioners No.4 and 5 have been returned to petitioner No.4 and 5 or not.

6. Today, during the proceedings of the case, learned Deputy Advocate General has placed on record communication issued under the signature of Superintendent of Police, Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, H.P., enclosing therewith receipts taken by Baba Balak Nath Finance Company Limited from petitioners No. 4 and 5 qua the amount received by them in lieu of FDR’s made in their favour by petitioners No.1 to 3. Besides above, affidavit duly executed by complainant Smt. Kalpna Devi has been placed on record to demonstrate that complainant has received sum of Rs.1,10,000/- alongwith interest from the financial company and as of today nothing is due. Aforesaid document/communication is taken on record.

7

7. Mr. K.B.Khajuria, learned counsel representing the petitioners while referring to aforesaid communication as well as documents placed on record by Superintendent of Police, Hamirpur, contends that since entire amount invested by petitioners No.4 and 5 on the askance of petitioner No.2 already stands received by petitioners No.4 and 5 that too prior to recording of judgment of conviction and order of sentence recorded by trial Court, this Court while exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C may quash the FIR as well as consequent proceedings pending in the competent court of law.

8. Mr. Narender Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General while fairly admitting factum with regard to receipt of entire sum invested by petitioners No.4 and 5 in the shape of FDR on the askance of petitioner No.2, states that though amount stands received by petitioners No.4 and 5, at whose instance FIR sought to be quashed came to be instituted, but keeping in view of the gravity of offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioners No.1 to 3, prayer made in the instant petition cannot be accepted , especially when they have been already convicted.

9. True, it is that in the case at hand, petitioners No.1 to 3 stand convicted on account of their having committed offence punishable under sections 403, 406, 120-B of IPC, but appeal having been filed by them against the aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence is still pending adjudication. It is not in dispute that

entire sum allegedly taken by the petitioner/accused from petitioners No. 4 and 5 for investing the same in financial company stood received by the petitioners No.4 and 5, prior to recording of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence and they after having received entire amount had filed an application to District Magistrate, Hamirpur for withdrawal from the prosecution. Though, Hon’ble Apex Court in Narinder Singh and others versus State of Punjab and another (2014)6 Supreme Court Cases 466, has categorically held that Court should be reluctant in quashing the FIR where allegations are with regard to financial embezzlement, but in the case at hand facts of the case nowhere suggest that there was some financial embezzlement, rather petitioner No.2 after having taken amount from petitioners No.4 and 5 invested the same in some financial company, which on account of some financial loss was unable to repay the same within stipulated time. Since entire amount invested by petitioners No.4 and 5 stands repaid to them alongwith upto date interest and thereafter they themselves sought permission for withdrawal from the prosecution, there appears to be no impediment in accepting the prayer made in the application. 10.This Court, after having carefully perused the compromise, which has been duly effected between the parties, sees substantial force in the prayer having been made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that offences in the instant case can be ordered to be compounded.

11.

11. Since the petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C, this Court deems it fit to consider the present petition 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:-

29. 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 482of 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 482of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482of 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 Actor 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 307IPC 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 307IPC 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 307IPC 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 307IPC. 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 482of 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 482of 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 307IPC 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 307IPC and conviction is already recorded of a heinous crime and, therefore, there is no question of sparing a convict found guilty of such a crime”.

12.

12. 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. 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) 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)

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 320of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory 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 320of 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 Actor 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.” (emphasis supplied)

8. 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.”

13.

13. Recently Hon’ble Apex Court in its latest judgment dated 4[th] October, 2017, titled as Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others versus State of Gujarat and Another,passed in Criminal Appeal No.1723 of 2017 arising out of SLP(Crl) No.9549 of 2016, reiterated the principles/ parameters laid down in Narinder Singh’s case supra for accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings. It would be profitable to reproduce para No. 13 to 15 of the judgment herein:

“13. The same principle was followed in Central Bureau of Investigation v. Maninder Singh (2016)1 SCC 389 by a bench of two learned Judges of this Court. In that case, the High Court had, in the exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 quashed proceedings under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 read with Section 120-B of the Penal Code. While allowing the appeal filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation Mr Justice Dipak Misra (as the learned Chief Justice then was) observed that the case involved allegations of forgery of documents to embezzle the funds of the bank. In such a situation, the fact that the dispute had been settled with the bank would not justify a recourse to the power under Section 482:

“…In economic offences Court must not only keep in view that money has been paid to the bank which has been defrauded but also the society at large. It is not a case of simple assault or a theft of a trivial amount; but the offence with which we are concerned is well planned and was committed with a deliberate design with an eye of personal profit regardless of consequence to the society at large. To quash the proceeding merely on the ground that the accused has settled the amount with the bank would be a misplaced sympathy. If the prosecution against the economic offenders are not allowed to continue, the entire community is aggrieved."

14. In a subsequent decision in State of Tamil Nadu v R Vasanthi Stanley (2016) 1 SCC 376, the court rejected the submission that the first respondent was a woman “who was following the command of her husband” and had signed certain documents without being aware of the nature of the fraud which was being perpetrated on the bank. Rejecting the submission, this Court held that:

“... Lack of awareness, knowledge or intent is neither to be considered nor accepted in economic offences. The submission assiduously presented on gender leaves us unimpressed. An offence under the criminal law is an offence and it does not depend upon the gender of an accused. True it is, there are certain provisions in Code of Criminal Procedure relating to exercise of jurisdiction Under Section 437, etc. therein but that altogether pertains to a different sphere. A person committing a murder or getting involved in a financial scam or forgery of documents, cannot claim discharge or acquittal on the ground of her gender as that is neither constitutionally nor statutorily a valid argument. The offence is gender neutral in this case. We say no more on this score…”

Procedure

“…A grave criminal offence or serious economic offence or for that matter the offence that has the potentiality to create a dent in the financial health of the institutions, is not to be quashed on the ground that there is delay in trial or the principle that when the matter has been settled it should be quashed to avoid the load on the system…”

15. The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject may be summarized in the following propositions:

(i) Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognizes and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court; Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognizes and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court;

(ii) The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a First Information Report or a criminal to quash a First Information Report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable.

(iii) In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power;

(iv) While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court; wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court; (v) The decision as to whether a complaint or First Information Report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated; Information Report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated;

(vi) In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has bee inherent n settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences; dealing with a plea that the dispute has bee inherent n settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences; (vii) As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing in so far as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned; criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing in so far as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned;

(viii) Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transac mental tions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute; commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transac mental tions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute; (ix) In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and

14.

(x) There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions (viii) and (ix) above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the state have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance. propositions (viii) and (ix) above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the state have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance.

The Hon’ble Apex Court in (2019) 5 SCC 688, titled as State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan , has held as under:-

“ 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: 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; 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; 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; 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 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. 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. 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.

It is quite apparent from the aforesaid exposition of law that High Court has inherent power to quash criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, but such power is to be exercised sparingly and with great caution. In the judgments, referred hereinabove, Hon’ble Apex Court has categorically held that Court while exercising inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. must have due regard to the nature and gravity of offence sought to be compounded. Hon’ble Apex Court has though held that heinous and serious offences of mental depravity, murder, rape, dacoity etc. cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute, but it has also observed that while exercising its powers, 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. Hon’ble Apex Court has further held that Court while exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C can also be swayed by the fact that settlement between the parties is going to result in harmony between them which may improve their future relationship. Hon’ble Apex Court in its judgment rendered in State of Tamil Nadu supra, has reiterated that Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice and has held that the power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable. In the aforesaid judgment Hon’ble Apex Court has held that while forming an opinion whether a criminal proceedings or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power.

16. In the case at hand also, offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioners do not involve offences of moral turpitude or any grave/heinous crime, rather same are petty offences, as such, this Court deems it appropriate to quash the FIR as well as consequential proceedings thereto, especially keeping in view the fact that the petitioners and respondent No.2/complainant have compromised the matter interse them, in which case, possibility of conviction is remote and no fruitful purpose would be served in continuing with the criminal proceedings.

17. Since the matter stands compromised between the parties and respondent No.2/complainant is no more interested in pursuing the criminal proceedings against the petitioner, no fruitful purpose would be served in case proceedings initiated at the behest of respondent No.2/complainant are allowed to continue, as such, prayer made in the petition at hand can be accepted.

18. Consequently, in view of the averments contained in the petition as well as the submissions having been made by the learned counsel for the parties that the matter has been compromised, and keeping in mind the well settled proposition of law as well as the compromise being genuine, this Court has no inhibition in accepting the compromise and quashing the FIR as well as consequent proceedings pending in the competent Court of law.

19. Accordingly, in view of the detailed discussion made hereinabove as well as law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, FIR No.89, dated 6.6.2009, under Sections 403, 406, 120-B of IPC, registered at police Station, Barsar, District Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh as well as consequent proceedings i.e. Criminal Appeal No.76 of 2017, pending adjudication in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, H.P., are quashed and set-aside. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1[st] Class, Barsar, District Hamirpur, H.P. is also set-aside. Petitioners/accused No.1 to 3 are acquitted of the charges framed against them.

20. The present petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. Interim order is vacated.

31[st] December,2021 (shankar)(shankar)

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge