HP HC Declines Quashing of FIR U/S 482 Cr.P.C., Highlights Alternative Remedy U/S 320(1) Cr.P.C.

The case, titled Mohan Singh & Others v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr., involved the petitioners seeking to quash an FIR (No. 0070 of 2023) dated October 17, 2023, registered at Police Station Shillai, District Sirmour, under Sections 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The FIR stemmed from a dispute that was later resolved through local intervention. The petitioners argued that continuing the proceedings would be futile and constitute an abuse of the court’s process. They claimed that no other remedy was available except for invoking the High Court’s inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.).

Important Legal Issues:

1. Compoundability of Offences Under Section 320(1) Cr.P.C.: The petitioners argued that all the offences mentioned in the FIR are compoundable under Section 320(1) of Cr.P.C., without requiring the court’s intervention. They cited previous judgments, including Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012), to support their position that the FIR could be quashed even though the offences were compoundable.

2. Exercise of Inherent Powers Under Section 482 Cr.P.C.: The central legal issue was whether the High Court should use its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR when an alternative remedy, such as compounding the offences at the trial court, was available.

Court’s Decision:

The Himachal Pradesh High Court, presided over by Justice Rakesh Kainthla, dismissed the petition. The court held that the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be exercised sparingly and only when no alternative remedy is available. Justice Kainthla emphasized that since the offenses listed in the FIR were compoundable under Section 320(1) of Cr.P.C., the petitioners should seek redress by approaching the trial court for compounding the offenses.

The court referred to several landmark judgments, such as Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra (1977) and Arun Shankar Shukla v. State of U.P. (1999), to reinforce the principle that the High Court’s inherent powers should not be invoked when a specific remedy is available under the Cr.P.C.

Court’s Observations:

Justice Kainthla quoted the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in Madhu Limaye, stating, “The power is not to be resorted to if there is a specific provision in the Code for the redress of the grievance of the aggrieved party; it should be exercised very sparingly to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.” The court also pointed out that the petitioners’ claim that no other remedy was available was incorrect since Section 320(1) of Cr.P.C. allows for the compounding of the offences mentioned in the FIR without requiring the court’s permission.

Also Read

• Sec 149 IPC| Reduction in number of convicts on account of death of the co-accused does not affect the surviving convicts in vicarious liability: Supreme Court
• Appeal from Order of Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner Maintainable only if there exists a Substantial Question of Law to be Considered: SC
• No Provision Under CRPC Can Curtail or Overshadow the Inherent Powers of the High Court Provided Under Section 482: Allahabad HC
• Section 482 CrPC | Heinous and Serious Offences Cannot be Quashed On Compromise Between Parties, Rules Gujarat HC
• Court Cannot Assess the Truthfulness of Allegations in a FIR Under Section 482 CrPC Petition: Rajasthan HC

Case Details:

– Case Title: Mohan Singh & Others v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr.

– Case Number: Cr. MMO No. 585 of 2024

– Bench: Justice Rakesh Kainthla

– For the Petitioners: Mr. Ganesh Barowalia, Advocate

– For the Respondents:

  – State: Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General

  – Respondent No. 2: Mr. Gambir Singh Chauhan, Advocate