Himachal Pradesh High Court
Jai Parkash Thakur vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Others on 23 October, 2019
Author: Vivek Singh Thakur
Bench: Vivek Singh Thakur
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr.MMO No. 617 of 2019
Date of decision: 23.10.2019
.
Jai Parkash Thakur. ...Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Others. ...Respondents
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the Petitioner: Mr.Mohit Thakur, Advocate.
r Petitioner Jai Parkash Thakur present in person.
For the Respondents: Mr.S.C. Sharma, Additional Advocate General,
with Mr.R.P. Singh, Deputy Advocate General,
for respondents No. 1 and 2.
Mr.Pawan Gautam, Advocate, for respondents
No. 3 and 4.
Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge (oral)
The instant petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (herein after referred to as 'Cr.PC') has been filed by petitioner- accused Jai Prakash Thakur, on the basis of compromise arrived at between him, complainant-respondent No. 3 Kirpal Singh and injured respondent No. 4 Dilbahadur for quashing FIR No. 0183, dated 24.8.2019, under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code (herein after referred to as 'IPC'), registered at Police Station Sadar, Shimla, H.P. and criminal proceedings initiated in pursuance thereto.
2. Petitioner Jai Prakash Thakur and respondents No. 3 and 4 Kirpal Singh and Dilbahadur, respectively are present in person and have been duly identified by their respective counsels. Their statements on oath have also been recorded.
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes ::: Downloaded on - 25/10/2019 20:24:59 :::HCHP 2 Cr. MMO No. 617 of 2019
3. Respondent No. 2-complainat in his statement has deposed that he had witnessed the accident and at that time vehicle being driven by the petitioner was coming downhill and it appears that accident had .
occurred on account of error of judgment and when, respondent No. 4 had suddenly come down on the road from stairs carrying vegetables on his back the car had hit him as well as pickup van, owned by him parked on the road at the site of accident. According to him he is not aware about the cause of accident and despite the fact that it has been mentioned in the FIR that accident had occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of driver of car, he is not sure about the cause of accident and further that he had suffered negligible losses on account of damage caused to his pick up van and cost of treatment of injured Dilbhadur was borne by the petitioner and he has also compensated Dilbhadur for loss of income suffered in the accident. He has further stated that he has deposed in the Court out of his free will, consent and without any coercion, threat or pressure of any kind.
4. Respondent No. 4 Dilbhadur, injured in present case, in his statement has deposed that at the time of accident he was carrying vegetables on his back and vehicle came from back side and hit him and caused injury to him and he does not know the cause of accident, as the vehicle had hit him from the back side and he cannot say that accident had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of petitioner Jai Prakash Thakur, as he had not witnessed the movement of the car and further that cost of his treatment was borne by the petitioner who has also compensated him for loss of income suffered by him in the accident and as he does not know the reason of the accident and also not sure about the fault of the driver of the vehicle, as such he has no objection in closing the criminal proceedings against the petitioner. He has further stated that he ::: Downloaded on - 25/10/2019 20:24:59 :::HCHP 3 Cr. MMO No. 617 of 2019 has deposed in the Court out of his free will, consent and without any coercion, threat or pressure of any kind.
5. Petitioner/accused Jai Prakash Thakur in his statement has .
deposed that at the time of accident Dilbahadur had come suddenly on the road carrying vegetables on his back and as he was coming downhill side, on account of sudden appearance of Dilbhadur, he could not control the vehicle, rather failed to judge his movement and on account of such error of the judgment, the accident had taken place. He has further deposed that neither before the accident nor after the accident he had/has indulged in any accident, however, he feels that the accident could have been avoided, but unfortunately it had happened and now the complainant as well as injured have agreed to pardon him, therefore, he has prayed for compounding of the case. He further stated that he has deposed in the Court out of his free will, consent and without any coercion, threat or pressure of any kind.
6. It is contended on behalf of respondent No. 1-State that petitioner/accused is not entitled to invoke inherent jurisdiction of this Court to exercise its power on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties with respect to an offence not compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C.
7. It is apt to record herein that a three Judges Bench of the Apex Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Others 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.P.C., 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 purpose no definite category of offence can be prescribed. However, it is also observed that Courts must have due regard ::: Downloaded on - 25/10/2019 20:24:59 :::HCHP 4 Cr. MMO No. 617 of 2019 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.P.C. 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.
8. The Apex Court in Parbatbhai Aahir alias Parbathbhai Bhimsinghbhai Karmur and others vs. State of Gujarat and another, (2017) 9 SCC 641 summarizing the broad principles regarding inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has recognized that these powers are not inhibited by provisions of Section 320 Cr.P.C.
9. The Apex Court in case Narinder Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab and Others reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 and also in State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and Others (2019) 5 SCC 688 has summed 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.
10. No doubt Section 279 IPC is not compoundable under Section 320 Cr. P.C. However, as explained by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh's, Narinder Singh's, Parbatbhai Aahir's and Laxmi Narayan's cases ::: Downloaded on - 25/10/2019 20:24:59 :::HCHP 5 Cr. MMO No. 617 of 2019 supra, power of High Court under Section 482 Cr.PC is not inhibited by the provisions of Section 320 Cr.P.C. and FIR as well as criminal proceedings can be quashed by exercising inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.PC, if it .
is 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 compoundable where parties have settled the matter between themselves.
11. In present case, complainant/respondent No. 3 in his statement, as discussed supra, has expressed his desire to close the proceedings against petitioner.
12. In Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab, (2008) 4 SCC 582, the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasized and advised that in the matter of compromise in criminal proceedings, keeping in view of nature of this case, to save the time of the Court for utilizing to decide more effective and meaningful litigation, a commonsense approach, based on ground realities and bereft of the technicalities of law, should be applied.
13. Offences in question, for material on record, do not fall in the category of offences termed to be prohibited, in the pronouncements of Apex Court, to be compounded exercising power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. In view of statements of respondent No. 3-complainant and respondent No. 4-injured, recorded on oath in this Court, probability of conviction is too remote.
14. Keeping in view the ratio of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and considering facts and evidence of the case in its entirety, present petition is allowed and matter is permitted to be compounded. Consequently, FIR No. 0183, dated 24.8.2019, registered at Police Station, Sadar Shimla, H.P. is quashed. Consequent to quashing of FIR No. 0183 of 2019, criminal proceedings initiated, if any, also stand quashed. ::: Downloaded on - 25/10/2019 20:24:59 :::HCHP 6 Cr. MMO No. 617 of 2019
15. Petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so also pending applications, if any.
Copy Dasti.
.
(Vivek Singh Thakur),
23rd October, 2019 Judge.
(KRS)
r to
::: Downloaded on - 25/10/2019 20:24:59 :::HCHP