2024:HHC:7716
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CrMMO No. 819 of 2024
Date of Decision: 30.8.2024
_____________________________________________________________________
Smt. Chandini Vij and Anr.
……...Petitioners
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr.
…....Respondents
Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?
For the Petitioners: Mr. Ashok Sood, Senior Advocate with Mr. Khem
Raj, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.
Verma, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi
Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for the State.
Mr. Ajay Kochhar, Senior Advocate with Mr.
Anirudh Kapoor, Advocate, for respondent No.2.
___________________________________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, J.
(Oral)
By way of present petition, prayer has been made by the
petitioners-accused for quashing of FIR No. 226 of 2023, dated 12.10.2023,
registered at Police Station West, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., under
Sections 341, 504 and 506 and Section 34 of IPC, alongwith consequential
proceedings pending in the competent court of law, on the basis of
compromise.
2
2. Precisely, the case of the petitioners, as emerge from the
pleadings, is that the FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings
came to be lodged at the behest of the respondent-complainant namely Lt.
Col. Devender Kumar Sharma, alleging therein that he as well as other
family members are facing litigation with respect to family dispute with his
daughter-in-law and her family members i.e. petitioners, in the different
courts at Shimla. He alleged that on 12.10.2023, while he had come to
attend the court case and matter was adjourned on his request on account
of illness of his son, petitioners not only hurled abuses in the court, but
also extended threats to do away with his life. He further alleged that while
he was leaving the court premises, both the accused extended threats that
in case he as well as his family members do not succumb to their demands,
they would teach them lesson. In the aforesaid background, FIR sought to
be quashed came to be instituted against the petitioners.
3. Though after completion of investigation, police has presented
challan in the competent court of law, but before same could be taken to its
logical end, parties entered into compromise, whereby they have resolved to
settle their dispute amicably inter-se them.
4. Averments contained in the petition as well as other material
adduced on record reveals that petitioner No.1 had also lodged FIR No. 23
3
of 2021 dated 6.12.2021, under Sections 491-A & 34 of Indian Penal Code,
registered at WPS BCS, Himachal Pradesh, against respondent No.2 and
his family members, but before same could be taken to its logical end,
parties entered into compromise. Respondent No.2 by way of CrMMO No.
1260 of 2022, approached this Court under Section 482 CrPC for quashing
of aforesaid FIR, but this Court having regard to the nature of dispute
inter-se parties, made an attempt to bring out settlement inter-se parties.
In the aforesaid proceedings, parties were able to settle their dispute
amicably, whereby petitioner No.1 Smt. Chandini Vij and person namely
Winnie Sharma i.e. respondent No.3 in CrMMO No. 1260 of 2022, resolved
to get their marriage dissolved by way of mutual consent by way of filing
application under Section 13 B of the Hindu Marriage Act. Apart from
above, person namely Sh. Winnie Sharma also agreed to pay sum of Rs.
1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore only), in lump sum to respondent No.1
Chandini Vij and her minor daughter.
5. In the afore proceedings, parties categorically stated before this
court, rather such fact stands reduced into compromise, which has been
made part of the judgment dated 6.8.2024, passed in CrMMO No. 1260 of
2022 that on account of amicable settlement inter-se parties, they shall
withdraw all the cases, be it civil or criminal, registered against each other.
4
6. Respondent No.2 herein in aforesaid proceedings categorically
deposed on oath before this Court that he shall have no objection in case
FIR No. 226 of 2023 under Sections 341, 504, 506 and 34 of IPC, registered
at PS Shimla West, Himachal Pradesh alongwith consequent proceedings
are closed. In the aforesaid background, petitioners have approached this
Court in the instant proceedings for quashing of aforesaid FIR No/226 of
2023 alongwith consequent proceedings.
7. Mr. Ashok Sood, learned Senior counsel appearing for the
petitioner while making this Court peruse record of CrMMO No. 1260 of
2022, wherein statement of respondent No.2 stands recorded, states that
on account of amicable settlement inter-se parties, FIR sought to be
quashed may also be quashed alongwith consequent proceedings.
8. Mr. Anirudh Kapoor, learned counsel for respondent No.2 while
fairly acknowledging factum with regard to compromise in CrMMO No.
1260 of 2022, states that respondent No.2 shall have no objection in case
prayer made in the instant proceedings for quashing of FIR is accepted and
accused are acquitted of the charges framed against them. He states that
since respondent No.2 has already stated on oath in CrMMO No. 1260 of
2022 that he shall have no objection in quashing the FIR in question
alongwith the consequent proceedings, there is no need for recording the
5
statement of respondent No.2 again, rather on the basis of statement given
by respondent No.2 in CrMMO No. 1260 of 2022, this Court may proceed to
quash the FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings.
9. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, who
was otherwise present at the time of passing of judgment in CrMMO No.
1260 of 2022, clearly states that since respondent No.2 has already stated
on oath before this court in CrMMO No. 1260 of 2022 that he shall have no
objection in case FIR No. 226 of 2023, dated 12.10.2023, registered at
Police Station West, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., under Sections 341, 504
and 506 and Section 34 of IPC, alongwith consequential proceedings, is
quashed, respondent-State shall have no objection in accepting the prayer
made in the instant application.
10. The question which now needs consideration is whether FIR in
question can be ordered to be quashed when Hon'ble Apex Court in
Narinder Singh and others versus State of Punjab and another (2014)6
SCC 466 has specifically held that power under S. 482 CrPC is not to be
exercised in the cases 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.
6
11. At this stage, it would be relevant to take note of the judgment
passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Narinder Singh (supra), whereby the
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 to 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 criminal proceedings
even in those cases which are not compoundable and where the parties
have settled the matter between themselves, however, this power is to be
exercised sparingly and with great caution. In para Nos. 29 to 29.7 of the
judgment Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down certain parameters to be
followed, while compounding offences.
12. Careful perusal of para 29.3 of the judgment suggests that
such a power is not to be exercised in the cases 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. Apart from this, offences committed under special statute like the
7
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. On the other hand, those
criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character,
particularly arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of
matrimonial relationship or family disputes may be quashed when the
parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves.
13. The Hon’ble Apex Court in 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 of quashment 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 further reiterated that
8
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. Hon'ble Apex Court
further observed that when offences of a personal nature, burying them
would bring about peace and amity between the two sides.
14. Hon’ble Apex Court in its judgment dated 4th 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.
15. Since parties have compromised the matter with each other
and respondents No.2, at whose instance FIR sought to be quashed in the
instant proceedings came to be lodged, is no more interested in pursuing
the criminal prosecution of the petitioners, this court sees no impediment
in accepting the prayer made on behalf of the petitioners for quashing of
the FIR alongwith all consequential proceedings.
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
9
Court deems it appropriate to quash the FIR as well as consequential
proceedings thereto, especially keeping in view the fact that the petitioners
and the complainant have compromised the matter inter-se them, in which
case, possibility of conviction is remote/bleak and no fruitful purpose
would be served in continuing with the criminal proceedings.
17. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law
laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court (supra), FIR No. 226 of 2023, dated
12.10.2023, registered at Police Station West, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P.,
under Sections 341, 504 and 506 and Section 34 of IPC, alongwith
consequential proceedings is quashed and set aside. Accused are acquitted
of the charges framed against them. The petition stands disposed of in the
aforesaid terms, alongwith all pending applications.
August 30, 2024 (Sandeep Sharma),
Judge
(manjit)