SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Mohd. Akram vs State Of H.P. And Others on 27 September, 2018



 Cr. MM(O) No. 324 of 2018


 Decided on : 27.09.2018

Mohd. Akram              ……Petitioner

State of H.P. and  others          …..Respondents


The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?__  

For the petitioner      :      Mr. M.A. Khan, Sr. Advocate  
with Mr. Naresh K. Sharma,   

For the respondents        :      Ms.   Rameeta   Kumari,
Additional   Advocate   General
with   Mr.R.R.Rahi,   Deputy

Advocate   General   for
respondent   No.1,   Mr.   Pankaj
Thakur,   Advocate,   for

respondent   No.2,   Mr.   V.B.

Verma,   Central   Government
Counsel for respondents No. 3

and 4.   


 Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge  (Oral)

This   petition   has   been   filed   for   quashing   of

FIR   No.   410   of   2016   dated   24.12.2016   under   Section

29/09/2018 22:57:51 :::HCHP

354 read with Section 34 IPC registered at Police Station

Poanta Sahib, District Sirmaur.


2.  In FIR three accused namely Sajid Ali son of

Shri   Anwar   Ali,   Arun   Khan   son   of   Hasna   and

Mohd.Akram   son   of   Shahid   Ali   have   been   named   who

were riding on the motorcycle being driven by Sajid Ali

on   the   date   of   incident.   Quashing   of   FIR   and

proceedings, in pursuant thereto, against the petitioner

have   been   sought   to   be   quashed   on   the   ground   that

petitioner has not committed any offence and he has not

outraged   the   modesty   of   complainant,   but   the   said

offence   was   committed   by   his   friends   only   and   the

petitioner   is   an   innocent   person   and   an   affidavit   of

complainant/respondent No. 2 Kulvinder Kaur has been

placed on record wherein she has stated that petitioner

had not outraged her modesty and she does not want to

get an innocent person punished.

3.  A compromise has also been placed on record

signed between petitioner Mohd. Akram and complainant

Kulvinder   Kaur   wherein   also   it   is   stated   that   Mohd.

29/09/2018 22:57:51 :::HCHP

Akram had not committed the offence and his name was

included in FIR at the instance of other two accused.


4.  On   issuance   of   notice,   respondent

No.2/complainant   Kulvinder   Kaur   had   appeared   in

Court   on   27.7.2018   on   which   date   her   statement   was

recorded.   Statement   of   Mohd.   Akram   has   also   been

recorded   on   27.7.2018.   In   her   deposition   in   Court,

complainant has categorically stated that when she was

walking   on   the   road   side,   a   motorcyclist   Sajid   Ali

brought   the   motorcycle   near   to   her   and   after   slowing

down the same, he touched her breast with his hand and

Arun   Khan   also   did   so,   whereupon   she   cried   and

motorcycle   was   stopped   by   the   persons   at   a   some

distance   and   Sajid   Ali   was   overpowered     on   the   spot,

whereas   Arun   Khan   and   Mohd.   Akram/petitioner   had

fled from the spot. She has further stated that she had

lodged the FIR to this extent only and the said facts have

rightly   been   recorded   in   FIR,   wherein   there   is   no

allegation   against   Mohd.   Akram   nor   did   he   had

assaulted   her   in   any   manner,   but,   he   was   sitting   on

29/09/2018 22:57:51 :::HCHP

motorcycle with Sajid Ali and Arun Khan as a last pillion

rider on the motorcycle and therefore his name also finds


mention   in   FIR.   She   has   categorically   stated   that

petitioner Mohd. Akram has not teased or assaulted her

in any manner and thus she felt that he is innocent and

even  may   not  be  knowing  about   the  intention  of  other

two   companions   to   commit   the   offence.   She   has

endorsed the execution of her affidavit Annexure P­3 and

signing of compromise Annexure P­4 by her with her free

will and consent without any fear or coercion.

5.  Petitioner Mohd. Akram in his deposition on

oath   has   stated   that   on   the   day   of   incident   i.e.

24.12.2016 at about 6/6.30 PM he was going to attend

the marriage in village Bata Mandi and on the way, Sajid

Ali and Arun Khan riding on the motorcycle met him in

the village and on their asking, he disclosed that he was

going to attend the marriage, whereupon they asked him

to join them as they were also going to attend the same

marriage and resultantly, he accompanied them on the

bike   being   driven   by   Sajid   Ali   and   when   they   reached

29/09/2018 22:57:51 :::HCHP

Bhungarni bus stop, Sajid Ali had touched the breast of

complainant with his hand and Arun Khan also did so,


whereupon   complainant   raised   alarm   and   at   a   short

distance,   Sajid   Ali   was   overpowered   and   he   and   Arun

Khan   fled   from   the   spot.   He   further   submits   that   he

neither   intended   to   commit   the   offence   nor   he   had

assaulted   or   touched   the   body   of   complainant   nor   he

had  joined them for doing so, but had  joined them on

their asking and took lift on the bike of Sajid Ali.

6.  Three   Judges   Bench   of   the   Apex   Court   in

Gian   Singh   Vs.   State   of   Punjab   and   Ors.  reported   in

(2012)   10   SCC   303,   explaining   that   High   Court   has

inherent   power   under   Section   482   of   the   Code   of

Criminal   Procedure   with   no   statutory   limitation

including Section 320 Cr.PC, has  held that these powers

are   to   be   exercised   to   secure   the   ends   of   justice   or  to

prevent abuse of process of any Court and these powers

can   be   exercised   to   quash   criminal   proceedings   or

complaint   or   FIR   in   appropriate   cases   where   offender

and   victim   have   settled   their   dispute   and   for   that

29/09/2018 22:57:51 :::HCHP

purpose   no   definite   category   of   offence   can   be

prescribed.   However,   it   is   also   observed   that   Courts


must have due regard to nature and gravity of the crime

and   criminal   proceedings   in   heinous     and   serious

offences   or   offence   like   murder,   rape   and   dacoity   etc.

should   not   be   quashed   despite   victim   or   victim   family

have   settled   the   dispute   with   offender.     Jurisdiction

vested in High Court under Section 482 Cr.PC is held to

be   exercisable   for   quashing   criminal   proceedings   in

cases   having   overwhelming   and   predominatingly   civil

flavour   particularly   offences   arising   from   commercial,

financial,   mercantile,     civil   partnership,   or   such   like

transactions, or even offences arising out of matrimony

relating   to   dowry   etc.,   family   disputes   or   other   such

disputes   where   wrong   is   basically   private   or   personal

nature   where   parties   mutually   resolve   their   dispute

amicably. It was also held that no category or cases for

this purpose could be prescribed and each case has to

be dealt with on its own merit but it is also clarified that

this power does not extend to crimes against society.

29/09/2018 22:57:51 :::HCHP

7. The Apex Court, in case Narinder Singh and

Ors.  Vs.  State   of  Punjab  and  Ors.  (2014)  6 SCC  466,


has sum up and laid down principles, by which the High

Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to

the settlement between the parties and exercise its power

under   Section   482   of   the   Code   while   accepting   the

settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to

accept   the   settlement   with   direction   to   continue     with

criminal proceedings.

8. No   doubt   Section   354   of   IPC     is   not

compoundable under Section 320 Cr. P.C. However, as

explained   by   Hon’ble   Supreme   Court   in  Gian   Singh’s

and Narinder Singh’s cases supra,  power of High Court

under   Section   482   CrPC   is   not   inhibited   by   the

provisions   of   Section   320   CrPC   and   FIR   as   well   as

criminal   proceedings   can   be   quashed   by   exercising

inherent   powers   under   Section   482   CrPC,   it   was

warranted in given facts and circumstances of the case

for ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of

any   Court,   even   in   those   cases   which   are   not

29/09/2018 22:57:51 :::HCHP

compoundable   where   parties   have   settled   the   matter

between themselves. 


9. On   perusal   of   FIR   as   well   as   deposition   of

complainant  Kulvinder Kaur on oath in this Court, it is

evident that even the proceedings against the petitioner

are continued in the trial Court and no fruitful purpose

shall be served as complainant has categorically stated

that   Mohd.   Akram   had   not   committed   any   offence

against   her   and   in   FIR   she   has   not   named   him   as   a

culprit but a person riding on the motorcycle as a third

person. Though the offence under Section 354 IPC is a

heinous crime against the women, but in present case, it

is ex­facie evident that petitioner was not involved in the

commission   of   offence,   but   it   was   Sajid   Ali   and   Arun

Khan who had committed the offence, therefore, it is a fit

case   for   interference   by   this   Court   under   Section   482

Cr.P.C. qua the petitioner only.

10.  Accordingly FIR No. 410 of 2016 registered in

Police Station Paonta Sahib under Section 354 read with

Section   34   IPC   and   consequential   proceedings   in

29/09/2018 22:57:51 :::HCHP

pursuant   thereto   pending   in   the   Court   of   learned

Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Paonta Sahib are set aside


and quashed qua petitioner only. 

 11. Needless to say that proceedings against two

other accused Sajid Ali and Arun Khan pending before

learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Paonta Sahib shall

be   completed   in   accordance   with   law.   It   is   made   clear

that   observations   made   in   this   petition   are   only   qua

Mohd.   Akram   and   not   to   be   read   and   considered   in

favour of Sajid Ali and Arun Khan in any manner. Their

role in the commission of offence is to be decided on its

own merits in accordance with law.

12.                   Petition   stands   disposed   of   including   all

pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.  Dasti  copy

on usual terms.

      (Vivek Singh Thakur)
September 27, 2018

29/09/2018 22:57:51 :::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