Full Text
CRL.M.C. 3940/2015
Date of Decision: November 05"^, 2015 MAHENDER NATH & ORS Petitioner
Through: Mr.Sunil Kumar, Advocate.
Through: Mr.Arun Kr.Sharma, APP.
Mr.Sanjay Thakur, Adv.for Respondent No.2.
JUDGMENT
1. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners, namely, Mahender Nath, Jai Pal and Shimla for quashing ofFIR No.394/2008 dated 16.12.2008, under Section 308/34 IPG registered at Police Station New Ashok Nagar on the basis of Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) arrived at between the petitioners and respondent no.2 & 3, namely, Deshraj @ Desha and Smt. Atri, respectively on 18.09.2015.
2. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State Crl.M.C. 3940/2015 Page 1of[8] 2015:DHC:11322 submitted that the respondent no.2, present in the Court has been identified to be the complainant/first-informant of the FIR in question and the respondent no.3 has been identified as the victim in the present case by their counsel.
3. Respondent Nos.[2] & 3 present in the Court, submitted that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved. As per the MOU, the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement with the intervention, good counseling of well-wishers, friends, relatives and neighbours. Respondents affirm the contents of the aforesaid MOU and their individual affidavits dated 18.09.2015 placed on record. As pertheir affidavits, the parties have amicably settled all their disputes and thus the respondent no.2 & 3 agree to the quashing of the FIR in question. All the disputes and differences have been resolved through mutual consent. Now no dispute with petitioners survives and so, the proceedings arising out of the FIR in question be brought to an end. Statement of the respondent Nos.[2] & 3 have been recorded in this regard in which they stated that they have entered into a compromise with the petitioners and have settled all the disputes with them. They further stated that they have no objection if the FIR in question is Crl.M.C. 3940/2015 Page 2of[8] quashed.
4. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 Apex Court has recognized the need of amicable resolution of disputes in cases like the instant one, byobserving asunder:-
5. The aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court in a recent judgment in Narinder Singh v. State ofPunjab (2014) 6SCC
466. The relevant observations ofthe Apex Court in Narinder Singh (Supra) are as under:-
Crl.M.C. 3940/2015 Page 3of[8] 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) toprevent abuse oftheprocess ofany court.
29.3. Such a power is not to 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 the offences alleged to have been committed under special statute like the 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.
29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions orarising out ofmatrimonial relationship orfamily disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves.
6. The inherent powers ofthe High Court ought to be exercised to prevent the abuse ofprocess oflaw and to secure the ends ofjustice. The respondent nos.[2] & 3 agreed to the quashing of the FIR in question and has stated that the matter has been settled out of their Crl.M.C. 3940/2015 Page 4of[8] H own free will. As the matter has been settled and compromised amicably, so, there would be an extraordinary delay in the process of law ifthe legal proceedings between the parties are carried on. So, this Court is ofthe considered opinion that this is a fit case to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent the abuse of process of law and tosecure the ends ofjustice.
7. The incorporation ofinherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is meant to deal with the situation in the absence ofexpress provision of law to secure the ends of justice such as, where the process is abused or misused; where the ends of justice cannot be secured; where the process of law is used for unjust or unlawful object; to avoid the causing ofharassment to any person by using the provision ofCr.P.C. or to avoid the delay ofthe legal process in the delivery of justice. Whereas, the inherent power is not to be exercised to circumvent theexpress provisions of law.
8. It is settled law that the inherent power ofthe High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be used sparingly. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case ofState ofMaharashtra through CBI v. Vikram Anatrai Doshi and Ors. MANU/SC/0842/2014 and in the case of Crl.M.C. 3940/2015 ^-4 Inder Singh Goswami v. State of UttaranchalMANU/SC/0808/2009 has observed that powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. must be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution. Only when the Court conies to the conclusion that there would be manifest injustice or there would be abuse ofthe process ofthe Court ifsuch power is not exercised, Court would quash the proceedings.
9. It is a well settled law that where the High Court is convinced that the offences are entirely personal in nature and therefore do not affect public peace or tranquillity and where it feels that quashing of such proceedings on account ofcompromise would bring about peace and would secure ends ofjustice, it should not hesitate to quash them. In such cases, pursuing prosecution would be waste of time and energy. Non-compoundable offences are basically an obstruction in entering into compromise. In certain cases, the main offence is compoundable but the connected offences are not. Inthe case of^.5". Joshi and others v. State ofHaryana and another 2003 (4) SCC 675 the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that even though the provisions of Section 320 Cr.P.C. would not apply to such offences which are not compoundable, it did not limit oraffect the powers under Section 482 Crl M.C. 3940/2015 Page 6of[8] Cr.P.C. The Hon'ble Apex Court laid down that iffor the purpose of securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necessary, section 320 Cr.P.C. would not be a bar to the exercise ofpower of quashing. In the nutshell, the Hon'ble Apex Court justified the exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings to secure the ends ofjustice in view ofthe special facts and circumstances of the case, even where the offences were noncompoundable. In the light of the aforesaid, this Court is of the view that notwithstanding the fact the offence under Section 308 IPC is noncompoundable offence, there should be no impediment in quashing the FIR under this section, if the Court is otherwise satisfied that the facts and circumstances ofthe case so warrant.
10. In the facts and circumstances of this case and in view of statements made by the respondent Nos.[2] & 3, the FIR in question warrants to be put to an end and proceedings emanating thereupon need to be quashed.
11. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and FIR No.394/2008 dated 16.12.2008, under Sections 308/34 IPC registered at Police Crl.M.C. 3940/2015 Page 7of[8] Station New Ashok Nagar and the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed againstthe petitioners.
12. This petition is accordingly disposed of.
NOVEMBER 05, 2015 dd Crl.M.C. 3940/2015 (p/l-fei) JUDGE