IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
.
Cr. Revision 404 of 2018
Date of decision: 15.11.2018.
Bunty @ Deepak Thakur …….Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh …..Respondent.
Coram
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.
A.G.
Mr. Balwant Singh Thakur, Advocate, with
complainant Smt. Meera Shukla, present in
person.
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/-
1
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes
20/11/2018 22:56:50 :::HCHP
2
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
3
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
propositions:-
(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
Court.
20/11/2018 22:56:50 :::HCHP
4
(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.
(3)
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
5
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
6
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
