Himachal Pradesh High CourtNar Singh Aged 40 Years Son Of Shri Jeetu vs State Of Haryana And Another on 22 April, 2022Author:Chander Bhusan BarowaliaBench:Chander Bhusan BarowaliaIN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA\n                ON THE DAY OF 22nd APRIL,2022\n                             BEFORE\n       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA\n    CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION (MAIN) U/S 482 CRPC No.158 OF 2022\n\n\n\n\n                                                         .\n        Between:-\n\n\n\n\n\n        1.    NAR SINGH AGED 40 YEARS SON OF SHRI JEETU,\n              RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KHAB, POST OFFICE DIUR,\n\n\n\n\n\n              TEHSIL SALOONI, DISTRICT CHAMBA, H.P.\n\n        2.    ASHOK KUMAR AGED 42 YEARS, SON OF SHRI\n              PARSU, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BHIGATHAR, POST\n              OFFICE DAND, TEHSIL SALOONI, DISTRICT CHAMBA,\n\n\n\n\n\n              H.P.\n\n        3.    BABLU AGED 43 YEARS, SON OF SHRI JAI SINGH,\n              RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BHIGATHAR, POST OFFICE\n              DAND, TEHSIL SALOONI, DISTRICT CHAMBA, H.P.\n\n        4.    HANS RAJ AGED 47 YEARS, SON OF SHRI MOTI,\n\n              RESIDENT OF BHIGATHAR, POST OFFICE DAND,\n              TEHSIL SALOONI, DISTRICT CHAMBA, H.P.\n\n        5.    RAJESH AGED 40 YEARS, SON OF SHRI BIAS DEV,\n              RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BHIGATHAR, POST OFFICE\n\n\n              DAND, TEHSIL SALOONI, DISTRICT CHAMBA, H.P.\n\n        6.    SURESH AGED 39 YEARS SON OF SHRI BAZERU,\n              RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KARERI, POST OFFICE DIUR,\n\n\n\n\n              TEHSIL SALOONI, DISTRICT CHAMBA, H.P.\n\n        7.    RAJ MAL AGED 47 YEARS, SON OF SHRI BAZEERU\n\n\n\n\n\n              RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KARERI, POST OFFICE DIUR,\n              TEHSIL SALOONI, DISTRICT CHAMBA, H.P.\n\n\n\n\n\n        8.    SHAM LAL AGED 45 YEARS, SON OF SHRI JEETU,\n              RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DHUTA, RESIDENT OF\n              VILLAGE DHUTA, POST OFFICE DIRU, TEHSIL\n              SALOONI, DISTRICT CHAMBA, H.P.\n\n        9.    BANTU AGED 44 YEARS, SON OF SHRI BAL KISHAN,\n              RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DHUTA, POST OFFICE DIUR,\n              TEHSIL SALOONI, DISTRICT CHAMBA, H.P.\n\n        10.   BAL KISHAN AGED 48 YEARS, SON OF SHRI JEETU\n              RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DHUTA, POST OFFICE DIUR,\n              TEHSIL SALOONI, DISTRICT CHAMBA, H.P.\n\n                                                  ...PETITIONERS\n\n        (BY MR. SURENDER K. SHARMA, ADVOCATE)\n\n\n\n\n                                        ::: Downloaded on - 22/04/2022 20:07:10 :::CIS\n                                                                       2\n\n\n\n\n                 AND\n\n\n                 1.           THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH THROUGH ITS\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                                       .\n                              SECRETARY (HOME) TO THE GOVERNMENT OF\n\n\n\n\n\n                              HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.\n\n                 2.           SHRI CHATRO SON OF SHRI BHAGNU, RESIDENT OF\n                              VILLAGE HAVED, PARGNA KIHAR, TEHSIL SALOONI,\n\n\n\n\n\n                              DISTRICT CHAMBA, H.P.\n\n                                                                                                 ...RESPONDENTS\n\n\n\n\n\n                 (BY MR. BHUPINDER THAKUR AND MR. YUDHBIR SINGH\n                 THAKUR, DY. ADVOCATES GENERAL)\n\n                 ( BY MR. ASHOK KUMAR, ADVOCATE, FOR R-2)\n\n                 1\n                     WHETHER APPROVED FOR REPORTING?                                             Yes.\n\n                         This petition coming on for orders this day, the Court passed\n                 the following :\n                                              ORDER\n\n\n                              The present petition is maintained by the petitioners\n\n    underSection 482of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter to be\n\n    called as "the Code") for quashing of F.I.R No.72 of 2020, dated\n\n\n\n\n    12.6.2020, underSections 147,430,506of the Indian Penal Code and\n\n\n\n\n\n    Section 3 (1) (V) of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention\n\n    of Atrocities) Act, 1989, registered at Police Station Kihar, District\n\n\n\n\n\n    Chamba, H.P. alongwith all consequential proceedings arising out of\n\n    the said F.I.R., pending before the learned trial Court.\n\n    2.                           Briefly stated the facts, giving rise to the present\n\n    petition,            as       per       the        prosecution                story,   are    that    respondent\n\n    No.2/complainant made a written complaint to the police alleging\n\n    therein that he has installed about 500 meters plastic water pipe from\n\n    Habed Nallah for his domestic as well as agricultural use. As per the\n\n    1\n        Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? Yes.\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                      ::: Downloaded on - 22/04/2022 20:07:10 :::CIS\n                                       3\n\n\n\n\n    complainant, on 12.6.2020 petitioners removed the water pipe line of\n\n    respondent No.2 without any reason and rhyme and made comments\n\n    on his caste. On the basis of statement of the complainant, FIR in\n\n\n\n\n                                                                 .\n\n    question was registered.      Now, the parties have entered into a\n\n    compromise, vide Compromise Deed (Annexure P-2) stating therein\n\n\n\n\n\n    that the complainant does not want to pursue the case against the\n\n    petitioners. Hence, the present petition.\n\n    3.            Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that as\n\n\n\n\n\n    the parties have compromised the matter, no purpose will be served\n\n    by keeping the proceedings against the petitioner and the FIR/Challan,\n\n    may be quashed and set aside.\n\n    4.            On the other hand, learned Deputy Advocate General has\n\n    argued that the offence is not compoundable, so the petition may be\n\n    dismissed.\n\n\n\n    5.             Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the\n\n    parties have entered into compromise, so, the proceedings pending\n\n\n\n\n    before the learned Court below may be quashed.\n\n\n\n\n\n    6.                  To appreciate the arguments of learned counsel\n\n    appearing on behalf of the parties, I have gone through the entire\n\n\n\n\n\n    record in detail.\n\n    7.            Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court B.S. Joshi\n\n    and others vs. State of Haryana and another, (2003) 4 SCC 675,\n\n    have held that if for the purpose of securing the ends of justice,\n\n    quashing of FIR becomes necessary,Section 320would not be a bar to\n\n    the exercise of power of quashing. It is well settled that the powers\n\n    undersection 482have no limits. Of course, where there is more\n\n\n\n\n                                                ::: Downloaded on - 22/04/2022 20:07:10 :::CIS\n                                        4\n\n\n\n\n    power, it becomes necessary to exercise utmost care and caution\n\n    while invoking such powers. Their Lordships have held as under:\n\n\n\n\n                                                                   .\n\n          [6] In Pepsi Food Ltd. and another v. Special Judicial\n          Magistrate and others ((1998) 5 SCC 749), this Court with\n          reference to Bhajan Lal's case observed that the guidelines\n          laid therein as to where the Court will exercise jurisdiction\n\n\n\n\n\n          underSection 482of the Code could not be inflexible or\n          laying rigid formulae to be followed by the Courts. Exercise\n          of such power would depend upon the facts and\n          circumstances of each case but with the sole purpose to\n          prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to\n          secure the ends of justice. It is well settled that these\n\n\n\n\n\n          powers have no limits. Of course, where there is more\n          power, it becomes necessary to exercise utmost care and\n          caution while invoking such powers.\n\n                [8] It is, thus, clear that Madhu Limaye's case does\n          not lay down any general proposition limiting power of\n\n          quashing the criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint as\n\n          vested inSection 482of the Code or extraordinary power\n          underArticle 226of the Constitution of India. We are,\n          therefore, of the view that if for the purpose of securing\n          the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necessary,Section 320would not be a bar to the exercise of power of\n          quashing. It is, however, a different matter depending upon\n\n\n          the facts and circumstances of each case whether to\n          exercise or not such a power.\n\n                [15] In view of the above discussion, we hold that\n\n\n\n\n          the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash\n          criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint andSection 320of the Code does not limit or affect the powers underSection 482of the Code.\n\n\n    8.            Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Preeti\n\n\n\n\n\n    Gupta and another vs. State of Jharkhand and another, (2010) 7\n\n    SCC 667, have held that the ultimate object of justice is to find out\n\n    the truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent. The tendency\n\n    of implicating the husband and all his immediate relations is also not\n\n    uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of the criminal trial, it\n\n    is difficult to ascertain the real truth. Experience reveals that long and\n\n    protracted criminal trials lead to rancour, acrimony and bitterness in\n\n    the relationship amongst the parties. The criminal trials lead to\n\n\n\n\n                                                  ::: Downloaded on - 22/04/2022 20:07:10 :::CIS\n                                       5\n\n\n\n\n    immense sufferings for all concerned. Their Lordships have further\n\n    held that permitting complainant to pursue complaint would be abuse\n\n    of process of law and the complaint against the appellants was\n\n\n\n\n                                                                  .\n\n    quashed. Their Lordships have held as under:\n\n\n\n\n\n          [27] A three-Judge Bench (of which one of us, Bhandari, J.was the author of the judgment) of this Court inInder\n          Mohan Goswami and Another v. State of Uttaranchal &\n          Others, 2007 12 SCC 1 comprehensively examined the\n          legal position. The court came to a definite conclusion and\n          the relevant observations of the court are reproduced in\n\n\n\n\n\n          para 24 ofthe said judgmentas under:-"Inherent powers undersection 482Cr.P.C. though\n          wide have to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with\n          great caution and only when such exercise is justified by\n\n          the tests specificallylaid down inthis section itself.\n          Authority of the court exists for the advancement of\n\n          justice. If any abuse of the process leading to injustice is\n          brought to the notice of the court, then the Court would\n          be justified in preventing injustice by invoking inherent\n          powers in absence of specific provisions in the Statute."[28] We have very carefully considered the\n\n\n          averments of the complaint and the statements of all the\n          witnesses recorded at the time of the filing of the\n          complaint. There are no specific allegations against the\n          appellants in the complaint and none of the witnesses\n\n\n\n\n          have alleged any role of both the appellants.[35] The ultimate object of justice is to find out the\n\n\n\n\n\n          truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent. To\n          find out the truth is a herculean task in majority of these\n          complaints. The tendency of implicating husband and all\n          his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times,\n\n\n\n\n\n          even after the conclusion of criminal trial, it is difficult to\n          ascertain the real truth. The courts have to be extremely\n          careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and\n          must take pragmatic realities into consideration while\n          dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of\n          harassment of husband's close relations who had been\n          living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited\n          the place where the complainant resided would have an\n          entirely different complexion. The allegations of the\n          complaint are required to be scrutinized with great care\n          and circumspection.36. Experience reveals that long and protracted criminal\n          trials lead to rancour, acrimony and bitterness in the\n          relationship amongst the parties. It is also a matter of\n          common knowledge that in cases filed by the complainant\n          if the husband or the husband's relations had to remain in::: Downloaded on - 22/04/2022 20:07:10 :::CIS6jail even for a few days, it would ruin the chances of\n          amicable settlement altogether. The process of suffering\n          is extremely long and painful.[38] The criminal trials lead to immense sufferings\n\n\n\n\n                                                                  .for all concerned. Even ultimate acquittal in the trial may\n\n\n\n\n\n          also not be able to wipe out the deep scars of suffering of\n          ignominy. Unfortunately a large number of these\n          complaints have not only flooded the courts but also have\n          led to enormous social unrest affecting peace, harmony\n\n\n\n\n\n          and happiness of the society. It is high time that the\n          legislature must take into consideration the pragmatic\n          realities and make suitable changes in the existing law. It\n          is imperative for the legislature to take into consideration\n          the informed public opinion and the pragmatic realities in\n          consideration and make necessary changes in the\n\n\n\n\n\n          relevant provisions of law. We direct the Registry to send\n          a copy of this judgment to the Law Commission and to the\n          Union Law Secretary, Government of India who may place\n          it before the Hon'ble Minister for Law & Justice to take\n          appropriate steps in the larger interest of the society.9.\n\n                 Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court inJitendra\n\n    Raghuvanshi and others vs. Babita Raghuvanshi and another,\n\n    (2013) 4 SCC 58,     have held that criminal proceedings or FIR or\n\n\n    complaint can be quashed underSection 482Cr. P.C. in appropriate\n\n    cases in order to meet ends of justice. Even in non-compoundable\n\n\n\n\n    offences pertaining to matrimonial disputes, if court is satisfied that\n\n    parties have settled the disputes amicably and without any pressure,\n\n\n\n\n\n    then for purpose of securing ends of justice, FIR or complaint or\n\n    subsequent criminal proceedings in respect of offences can be\n\n\n\n\n\n    quashed. Their Lordships have held as under:[13] As stated earlier, it is not in dispute that after\n          filing of a complaint in respect of the offences punishable\n          underSections 498Aand406of IPC, the parties, in the\n          instant case, arrived at a mutual settlement and the\n          complainant also has sworn an affidavit supporting the\n          stand of the appellants. That was the position before the\n          trial Court as well as before the High Court in a petition\n          filed underSection 482of the Code. A perusal of the\n          impugned order of the High Court shows that because the\n          mutual settlement arrived at between the parties relate\n          to non-compoundable offence, the court proceeded on a::: Downloaded on - 22/04/2022 20:07:10 :::CIS7wrong premise that it cannot be compounded and\n    dismissed the petition filed underSection 482. A perusal\n    of the petition before the High Court shows that the\n    application filed by the appellants was not for\n    compounding of non-compoundable offences but for the\n\n\n\n\n                                                            .purpose of quashing the criminal proceedings.[14] The inherent powers of the High Court underSection 482of the Code are wide and unfettered. In B.S.\n    Joshi, this Court has upheld the powers of the High Court\n    underSection 482to quash criminal proceedings where\n\n\n\n\n\n    dispute is of a private nature and a compromise is\n    entered into between the parties who are willing to settle\n    their differences amicably. We are satisfied that the said\n    decision is directly applicable to the case on hand and the\n    High Court ought to have quashed the criminal\n    proceedings by accepting the settlement arrived at.[15] In our view, it is the duty of the courts to\n    encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes,\n    particularly, when the same are on considerable increase.\n    Even if the offences are non-compoundable, if they relate\n\n    to matrimonial disputes and the court is satisfied that the\n    parties have settled the same amicably and without any\n\n    pressure, we hold that for the purpose of securing ends of\n    justice,Section 320of the Code would not be a bar to the\n    exercise of power of quashing of FIR, complaint or the\n    subsequent criminal proceedings.[16] There has been an outburst of matrimonial\n    disputes in recent times. The institution of marriage\n    occupies an important place and it has an important role\n    to play in the society. Therefore, every effort should be\n    made in the interest of the individuals in order to enable\n\n\n\n\n    them to settle down in life and live peacefully. If the\n    parties ponder over their defaults and terminate their\n    disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of\n\n\n\n\n\n    fighting it out in a court of law, in order to do complete\n    justice in the matrimonial matters, the courts should be\n    less hesitant in exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction. It\n    is trite to state that the power underSection 482should\n\n\n\n\n\n    be exercised sparingly and with circumspection only when\n    the court is convinced, on the basis of material on record,\n    that allowing the proceedings to continue would be an\n    abuse of the process of the court or that the ends of\n    justice require that the proceedings ought to be quashed.\n    We also make it clear that exercise of such power would\n    depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case\n    and it has to be exercised in appropriate cases in order to\n    do real and substantial justice for the administration of\n    which alone the courts exist. It is the duty of the courts to\n    encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes\n    andSection 482of the Code enables the High Court andArticle 142of the Constitution enables this Court to pass\n    such orders.[17] In the light of the above discussion, we hold\n    that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can::: Downloaded on - 22/04/2022 20:07:10 :::CIS8quash the criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint in\n          appropriate cases in order to meet the ends of justice andSection 320of the Code does not limit or affect the\n          powers of the High Court underSection 482of the Code.\n          Under these circumstances, we set aside the impugned\n\n\n\n\n                                                                 .judgment of the High Court dated 04.07.2012 passed in\n\n\n\n\n\n          M.C.R.C. No. 2877 of 2012 and quash the proceedings in\n          Criminal Case No. 4166 of 2011 pending on the file of\n          Judicial Magistrate Class-I, Indore."10.         Similarly, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Parbatbhai Aahir\n\n    aliasParbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others vs. State of\n\n    Gujarat and another, (2017) 9 Supreme Court Cases 641,\n\n\n\n\n\n    wherein it has been held as under :"16. The broad principles which emerge from the\n                  precedents on the subject, may be summarised in\n                  the following propositions:16.1.Section 482preserves the inherent powers\n                  of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the\n\n                  process of any court or to secure the ends of\n                  justice. The provision does not confer new\n                  powers. It only recognises and preserves powers\n                  which inhere in the High Court;16.2. The invocation of the jurisdiction of the\n\n\n                  High Court to quash a First Information Report or\n                  a criminal proceeding on the ground that a\n                  settlement has been arrived at between the\n                  offender and the victim is not the same as the\n                  invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of\n\n\n\n\n                  compounding an offence. While compounding an\n                  offence, the power of the court is governed by\n                  the provisions ofSection 320of the Code of\n\n\n\n\n\n                  Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash\n                  underSection 482is attracted even if the offence\n                  is non-compoundable.16.3. In forming an opinion whether a criminal\n\n\n\n\n\n                  proceeding or complaint should be quashed in\n                  exercise of its jurisdiction underSection 482, the\n                  High Court must evaluate whether the ends of\n                  justice would justify the exercise of the inherent\n                  power;16.4 While the inherent power of the High Court\n                  has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be\n                  exercised; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii)\n                  to prevent an abuse of the process of any court;\n                  16.5 The decision as to whether a complaint or\n                  First Information Report should be quashed on\n                  the ground that the offender and victim have\n                  settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the\n                  facts and circumstances of each case and no\n                  exhaustive elaboration of principles can be\n                  formulated;::: Downloaded on - 22/04/2022 20:07:10 :::CIS916.6. In the exercise of the power underSection\n                  482and while dealing with a plea that the\n                  dispute has been settled, the High Court must\n                  have due regard to the nature and gravity of the\n                  offence. Heinous and serious offences involving\n\n\n\n\n                                                                   .mental depravity or offences such as murder,\n\n\n\n\n\n                  rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be\n                  quashed though the victim or the family of the\n                  victim have settled the dispute. Such offences\n                  are, truly speaking, not private in nature but\n                  have a serious impact upon society. The decision\n\n\n\n\n\n                  to continue with the trial in such cases is founded\n                  on the overriding element of public interest in\n                  punishing persons for serious offences;\n                  16.7. As distinguished from serious offences,\n                  there may be criminal cases which have an\n                  overwhelming or predominant element of a civil\n\n\n\n\n\n                  dispute. They stand on a distinct footing in so far\n                  as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is\n                  concerned;16.8. Criminal cases involving offences which\n                  arise from commercial, financial, mercantile,\n\n                  partnership or similar transactions with an\n                  essentially civil flavour may in appropriate\n\n                  situations fall for quashing where parties have\n                  settled the dispute;16.9 In such a case, the High Court may quash\n                  the criminal proceeding if in view of the\n                  compromise      between     the   disputants,   the\n\n\n                  possibility of a conviction is remote and the\n                  continuation of a criminal proceeding would\n                  cause oppression and prejudice; and\n                  16.10. There is yet an exception to the principle\n                  set out in propositions 16.8 and 16.9 above.Economic offences involving the financial and\n                  economic     well-being    of   the   state    have\n                  implications which lie beyond the domain of a\n\n\n\n\n\n                  mere dispute between private disputants. The\n                  High Court would be justified in declining to\n                  quash where the offender is involved in an\n                  activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or\n\n\n\n\n\n                  misdemeanour. The consequences of the act\n                  complained of upon the financial or economic\n                  system will weigh in the balance.Even if, the trial is allowed to be continued, as the parties\n\n    have compromised the matter, there are bleak chances of conviction\n\n    to secure the ends of justice.11.           Thus, taking into consideration the law as discussed\n\n    hereinabove, I find that the interest of justice will be met, in case, the::: Downloaded on - 22/04/2022 20:07:10 :::CIS10proceedings are quashed, as the parties have already compromised\n\n    the matter.12.           Accordingly,   looking    into   all   attending       facts    and\n\n\n\n\n                                                                     .circumstances, I find this case to be a fit case to exercise jurisdiction\n\n    vested in this Court, underSection 482of the Code and accordingly\n\n\n\n\n\n    F.I.R No.72 of 2020, dated 12.6.2020, underSections 147,430,506of\n\n    the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 (1) (V) of the Scheduled Caste &\n\n    Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, registered at\n\n\n\n\n\n    Police Station Kihar, District Chamba, H.P. is ordered to be quashed\n\n    and consequently, the proceedings pending before the learned Trial\n\n    Court, arising out of the aforesaid FIR, are also ordered to be quashed.13.           The petition is accordingly disposed of alongwith pending\n\n    applications, if any.( Chander Bhusan Barowalia )\n\n\n\n                                                       Judge\n\n    22nd April, 2022\n    (CS)::: Downloaded on - 22/04/2022 20:07:10 :::CIS