Yaman Sheikh v. State of Himachal Pradesh

: Mr. Gautam Sood, Deputy Advocate General. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition to quash FIR no.8 of 2022, dated 12.01.2022, registered at Police Station Palampur for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 307, 365, 341, 323, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and consequent proceedings pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palampur, based on the compromise effected between the parties. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2

#2. I have heard Mr. Nimish Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Gautam Sood, learned Deputy Advocate General for respondent-State.

#3. Mr. Nimish Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the parties are related to each other. The victim is the sister of the accused. They want to maintain a cordial relationship. An FIR can be quashed by the Court in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. He relied upon the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Narender Singh versus the State of Punjab, 2014 (6) SCC 466, State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan, (2019) 5 SCC 688: (2019) 2 SCC (Cri) 706: 2019 SCC OnLine SC 320 and Naushey Ali and others Vs. State of U.P. and another 2025 INSC 182 in support of his submission.

#4. Mr Gautam Sood, learned Deputy Advocate General for respondent-State, submitted that the allegations in the FIR prima facie make out a case for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC. Such an FIR cannot be quashed in the exercise of the inherent powers as the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC affects the society at large. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 3

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

#6. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303: 2012 SCC OnLine SC 769 that the power to quash the proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. based on the compromise is different from the power of compounding under Section 320 of CrPC. It was observed: “57. Quashing of offence or criminal proceedings on the ground of settlement between an offender and victim is not the same thing as compounding of offence. They are different and not interchangeable. Strictly speaking, the power of compounding offences given to a court under Section 320 is materially different from the quashing of criminal proceedings by the High Court in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. In compounding of offences, the power of a criminal court is circumscribed by the provisions contained in Section 320, and the court is guided solely and squarely thereby while, on the other hand, the formation of opinion by the High Court for quashing a criminal offence or criminal proceeding or criminal complaint is guided by the material on record as to whether the ends of justice would justify such exercise of power although the ultimate consequence may be acquittal or dismissal of indictment.

#58. Where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that the dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled although the offences are not compoundable, it does so as, in its opinion, a continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that 4 the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. No doubt, crimes are acts that have harmful effects on the public and consist of wrongdoing that seriously endangers and threatens the well-being of society, and it is not safe to leave the crime-doer only because he and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or the victim has been paid compensation, yet certain crimes have been made compoundable in law, with or without the permission of the court. In respect of serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., or other offences of mental depravity under IPC or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between the offender and the victim can have no legal sanction at all. However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour, having arisen out of a civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to the victim and the offender and the victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or FIR if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated. The above list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Each case will depend on its own facts, and no hard-and- fast category can be prescribed.” (Emphasis supplied)