Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
Mohan Singh and Ors. – Petitioners
versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr. – Respondents
Cr. MMO No.585 of 2024
Decided on 19.7.2024

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioners:Mr. Ganesh Barowalia, Advocate
For the Respondent No.1-State:Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate
For the Respondent No.2:Mr. Gambir Singh Chauhan Advocate

IMPORTANT POINT
Compounding of offences – Extraordinary power vested in High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. cannot be exercised when alternative remedy is available.

Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 [Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Sections 115(2), 352 and 351 read with Section 3(5)] – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 320 and 482 [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Sections 359 and 528] – Hurt, insult and criminal intimidation – Compounding of offences – Settlement between parties – Cr.P.C. nowhere provides any distinction between two parts of Section 506 of IPC and merely provides that criminal intimidation punishable under Section 506 of IPC is compoundable at instance of person intimidated – In present case, petition is silent as to why petitioners cannot approach Trial Court for compounding the offences – There exists no reason to exercise extraordinary power vested in this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. when alternative remedy is available – Petition dismissed – However, parties can approach Trial Court seeking composition of offences. (Paras 9, 17 and 18)
Result: Petition dismissed.

JUDGMENT

Rakesh Kainthla, J.—The petitioners have filed the present petition for quashing of F.I.R. No. 0070 of 2023, dated 17.10.2023, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC at Police Station Shillai, District Sirmour, H.P. and consequential proceedings arising out of the F.I.R.

2. It has been asserted that the dispute between the parties has been settled with the intervention of the local people. No fruitful purpose would be served by pursuing the consequent proceedings arising out of the F.I.R. The continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court. There is no efficacious remedy except the present petition. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the F.I.R. and consequential proceedings arising thereto be ordered to be quashed.

3. All the offences mentioned in the F.I.R. are compoundable as per Section 320(1) of Cr. P.C. without the intervention of the Court. Hence, the parties were heard on the question of maintainability of the present petition before this Court.

4. Mr. Ganesh Barowalia, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon para 48(d) of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303 to submit that the offence punishable under Section 506 (2) of IPC is noncompoundable; therefore, the present petition is maintainable before this Court. He further submitted that even if the offences are compoundable, the Court had quashed the F.I.R. for such offences. He placed reliance on the judgments of this Court in State of H.P. Vs. Kamal Singh & another, Criminal Revision No. 163 of 2008, decided on 14th June, 201 and Sunita Devi vs State of H.P.& others, Cr.MP(M) No. 576 of 2022, decided on 5th August 2022 in support of his submission.

5. Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for respondent No.1/State submitted that the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is extraordinary and should be sparingly exercised. In the present case, such power should not be exercised when an alternative remedy is available to approach the learned Trial Court. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

6. Mr. Gambir Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for respondent No.2 supported the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners and prayed that the present petition be allowed.

7. I have given considerable thought to the submissions at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.

8. Para 48 of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gain Singh’s case (supra) reads as under:-

48. A five-judge Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Kulwinder Singh v. State of Punjab [(2007) 4 CTC 769] was called upon to determine, inter alia, the question whether the High Court has the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings or allow the compounding of the offences in the cases which have been specified as noncompoundable offences under the provisions of Section 320 of the Code. The five-Judge Bench referred to quite a few decisions of this Court including the decisions in Madhu Limaye [(1977) 4 SCC 551: 1978 SCC (Cri) 10], Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335: 1992 SCC (Cri) 426], L. Muniswamy [(1977) 2 SCC 699: 1977 SCC (Cri) 404], Simrikhia [(1990) 2 SCC 437: 1990 SCC (Cri) 327], B.S. Joshi [(2003) 4 SCC 675: 2003 SCC (Cri) 848] and Ram Lal [(1999) 2 SCC 213: 1999 SCC (Cri) 123] and framed the following guidelines : (Kulwinder Singh case [(2007) 4 CTC 769], CTC pp. 783-84, para 21)

“21. … ‘(a) Cases arising from matrimonial discord, even if other offences are introduced for aggravation of the case.

(b) Cases pertaining to property disputes between close relations, which are predominantly civil in nature and they have a genuine or belaboured dimension of criminal liability. Notwithstanding a touch of criminal liability, the settlement would bring lasting peace and harmony to a larger number of people