SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Bunty @ Deepak Thakur vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 15 November, 2018



Cr. Revision 404 of 2018

Date of decision: 15.11.2018.

Bunty @ Deepak Thakur …….Petitioner.

State of Himachal Pradesh …..Respondent.


The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting? 1 No

For the Petitioner
r : Mr. B.C. Verma, Advocate.

For the Respondent : Mr. Vinod Thakur and Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar,
Addl. A.Gs., with Mr. Bhupinder Thakur, Dy.


Mr. Balwant Singh Thakur, Advocate, with

complainant Smt. Meera Shukla, present in

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (Oral).

This revision petition is filed under Section 397 Cr.P.C.

against the judgment dated 29.8.2018 passed by learned Sessions Judge,

Kinnaur Sessions Division at Rampur Bushahr in Criminal Appeal No. 11

of 2017 whereby he partly affirmed the judgment of conviction and

sentence dated 19.1.2017/7.2.2017 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate

1st Class, Anni, District Kullu in Criminal Case No.98-2 of 2011 whereby

the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple

imprisonment for one year and six months and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-


Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes

20/11/2018 22:56:50 :::HCHP

and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment

for one month for committing offence punishable under Section 354 IPC.


The petitioner was further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for

three months and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of

fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days for offence

punishable under Section 451 IPC. In addition thereto, he was also

sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and to pay a

fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo

simple imprisonment for 15 days for offence punishable under Section 323

IPC. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. When the case was taken up today, the petitioner and the

complainant are present in person and are identified as such by their

respective counsel(s). The complainant vide separately recorded

statement stated that she has entered into a compromise with the

intervention of local people and relatives of both sides with the petitioner

out of free will and without any pressure or coercion from any side and she

does not want to pursue the present case any further against the petitioner

as the matter has been compromised between the parties. This statement

of the complainant is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner,

who stated that the matter has been compromised between the parties.

3. However, the moot question now is whether a case of the instant

kind can be compromised, more particularly, when the offence(s) admittedly

is/are not compoundable.

20/11/2018 22:56:50 :::HCHP

4. The issue, in fact, is no longer res integra in view of the

judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bharti vs. State of


Haryana and others (2014) 4 SCC 14, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court

while dealing with a compromise involving offence under Sections 451 and

354 IPC, permitted the compounding of the offence.

5. Apart from the above, it needs to be emphasized that it is

always advisable that in disputes where the question of the present kind

involved, the Court should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even

in criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a

result in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the Courts, grossly

overburdened as they are ill-afford and that the time so saved can be utilised

in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation.

6. Even otherwise, the compromise does not fall within any of the

exceptions of the principles as have been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme

Court in a three Judge bench decision in Parbatbhai Aahir alias Parbatbhai

Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others vs. State of Gujarat and another (2017)

9 SCC 641, which principles can be summarised in the following


(1) 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 recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High

20/11/2018 22:56:50 :::HCHP

(2) The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court 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.


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.

(4) 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.

(5) 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.

(6) In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while
dealing with a plea that the dispute has been 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

20/11/2018 22:56:50 :::HCHP

founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing
persons for serious offences.


(7) 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.

(8) Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial,
financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an

essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for
quashing where parties have settled the dispute.

(9) 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

(10) There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions
(8) and (9) 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.

7. In view of the aforesaid discussion and for the reasons set out

above, the impugned judgments dated 29.8.2018 and 19.1.2017/7.2.2017

passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kinnaur Sessions Division at Rampur

Bushahr in Criminal Appeal No. 11 of 2017 and learned Judicial Magistrate 1 st

20/11/2018 22:56:50 :::HCHP

Class, Anni, District Kullu in Criminal Case No.98-2 of 2011, are quashed and

resultantly the petitioner is discharged/ acquitted of the offences.


8. The revision petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so

also the pending application, if any.

Copy dasti.

15th November, 2018. (Tarlok Singh Chauhan),
(GR) Judge

r to

20/11/2018 22:56:50 :::HCHP

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.


Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation