SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2014 Supreme(HP) 1684

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
P.S.RANA, J.
Sanjay Sharma son of Om Parkash and others – Appellants
Versus:
State of Himachal Pradesh and others – Respondent
Cr.MMO No. 119 of 2014
Decided on : 26-11-2014

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the applicant:Mr. Ashwani Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr.M.L.Chauhan, Mr.J.S.Rana, Mr. Arun Raj, Advocate

The power to quash the FIR should be used sparingly and with caution, especially in cases involving non-compoundable offences such as criminal conspiracy.

Headnote:

Compounding - Criminal Conspiracy - Sections 420, 120B, 34 IPC - The court held that while the offence under Section 420 IPC is compoundable, the offence under Section 120B IPC is not. The court cited various cases to support its decision and emphasized that the power to quash the FIR should be used sparingly and with caution. The court concluded that the criminal conspiracy is an offence against the State and society, and the payment made by the accused to the complainant does not discharge them from the criminal offence.

Fact of the Case:

The petition was filed to quash FIR registered under Sections 420, 120B read with Section 34 IPC, citing a settlement between the complainant and the accused. The accused were alleged to have committed cheating and criminal conspiracy by receiving an amount from the complainant.

Finding of the Court:

The court rejected the application, stating that the offence under Section 120B IPC is non-compoundable and that the power to quash the FIR should be used sparingly. The court emphasized that criminal conspiracy is an offence against the State and society, and the payment made by the accused to the complainant does not discharge them from the criminal offence.

Issues: Whether the petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is liable to be accepted.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the offence under Section 120B IPC is non-compoundable and that the power to quash the FIR should be used sparingly and with caution. The court emphasized that criminal conspiracy is an offence against the State and society, and the payment made by the accused to the complainant does not discharge them from the criminal offence.

Final Decision: The application filed under Section 482 Cr. PC for quashing of FIR No. 202 of 2013 was rejected.

JUDGMENT :

P.S.Rana, J.

Present petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 for quashing FIR No. 202 of 2013 dated 21.10.2013 registered under Sections 420, 120B read with Section 34 IPC at Police Station Sadar Shimla.

2. It is pleaded that FIR was registered at the instance of Maheswar Dutt Sharma. It is pleaded that complainant Maheswar Dutt Sharma and accused persons have amicably settled the dispute by way of executing compromise deed duly attested by Oath Commissioner in the presence of two independent witnesses on dated 15.5.2014. It is pleaded that complainant had received the amount of Rs. 1,35,000/- (One lac thirty five thousand) on dated 15.5.2014. It is further pleaded that offence punishable under Sections 420, 120B read with Section 34 IPC are compoundable offences under Section 320 Cr PC with prior permission of the Court. Prayer for acceptance of petition filed under Section 482 Cr PC sought.

3. Per contra reply and police report filed. There is recital in reply and police report that FIR No. 202 of 2013 dated 21.10.2013 has been registered against the applicants under Sections 420, 120B read with Section 34 IPC at Police Station Sadar Shimla District Shimla HP. There is further recital in police report that applicants joined the investigation of the case. There is further recital in police report that during the investigation accused persons did not disclose anything about cheque book, pass book and ATM cards. There is further recital in police report that recoveries of cheque book, pass book and ATM card are still to be recovered from the accused persons. There is further recital in police report that accused persons are residing outside the State of Himachal Pradesh.

There is further recital in police report that accused persons have given advertisement in the news paper =Amar Ujala' that they would install telephone tower and they would also provide employment and hand some salary. There is further recital in police report that thereafter accused persons demanded an amount of Rs.1,35,000/- (one lac thirty five thousand) from the complainant and complainant paid Rs.1,35,000/- (one lac thirty five thousand) to the accused persons. It is further pleaded that criminal offence is committed against State and not against complainant Maheshwar Dutt Sharma individually. It is pleaded that offence under Section 120B is not compoundable criminal offence. There is further recital in police report that despite receiving an amount of Rs. 1,35,000/- (One lac thirty five thousand) by the accused persons, they did not execute the promise as has been assured by them. Prayer for rejection of application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure sought. Per contra separate reply filed on behalf of complainant Maheshwar Dutt Sharma pleaded therein that he had received amount to the tune of Rs.1,35,000/- (One lac thirty five thousand) on dated 15.5.2014 and he has no objection if FIR No.202 of 2013 dated 21.10.2013 registered at Police Station Sadar Shimla District Shimla is quashed.

4. Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of applicant and Court also heard learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of non-applicant.

5. Following points arise for determination in the present application.

(1) Whether petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of application.

(2) Final Order.

Finding upon point No.1.

6. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicants that a compromise has been executed inter se the parties and permission to compound the present case be granted and FIR be quashed are rejected being devoid of any force for the reason hereinafter mentioned. FIR has been registered against the applicants under Sections 420, 120B read with Section 34 IPC. Although offence under Section 420 IPC is compoundable but offence under Section 120B IPC is not compoundable. The all

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top