Himachal Pradesh High Court
Kulbhushan Alias Gaurav Thakur vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Another on 24 October, 2019
Author: Vivek Singh Thakur
Bench: Vivek Singh Thakur
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
SHIMLA
Cr.MMO No. 487 of 2019
.
Date of Decision: October 24, 2019
Kulbhushan alias Gaurav Thakur ...Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & another ..Respondents.
Coram:
r to
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the Petitioners: Mr. Abhishek Kaushik, Advocate.
For the Respondent: M/s S.C. Sharma & Desh Raj Thakur ,
Additional Advocate Generals, for
respondent No.1.
Mr.Pavinder, Advocate, vice Mr.Abhishek
Sood, Advocate, for respondent No.2.
Vivek Singh Thakur, J. (oral)
The instant petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.PC') has been filed by petitioner, on the basis of compromise deed (Annexure P-2) arrived at between the parties, for quashing of FIR No.47/2019, dated 02.03.2019, registered under Sections 279 and 337 of the 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 25/10/2019 20:25:18 :::HCHP 2Indian Penal Code (herein after referred to as 'IPC') and subsequent proceedings arising thereof.
2. On 17.10.2019, complainant/victim Vanshika was .
present in the Court and her statement on oath was recorded wherein she has stated that FIR No.47/2019, dated 02.03.2019 was registered at Police Station, Sadar, Solan, under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC at her behest. She has further stated that the accident which, in fact, took place, which stands mentioned in the above mentioned FIR, was not a result of rash and negligent driving of the accused therein and she on perusal of Annexures P-1 and P-2 appended with the petition acknowledged the execution as well as contents thereof and further identified her signatures on Annexure P-2. She has further stated that the said documents were executed by her out of her free will and volition and not under any coercion or duress and whatever statement she had made in the Court, was also on account of her free will and volition and not under any coercion or duress and that in view of affidavit filed by her appended with the petition as P-1, she is no more interested in pursuing FIR No.47/2019, dated 02.03.2019, registered at Police Station, Sadar, Solan, under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC and subsequent criminal proceedings i.e. case No.111/2019, titled as State vs. Kulbhushan, pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1 st Class, Solan and having no objection in quashing the FIR and setting aside criminal proceedings pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Solan.
::: Downloaded on - 25/10/2019 20:25:18 :::HCHP 33. It is contended on behalf of the respondent-State that petitioner 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.
4. Three Judges Bench of the Apex Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Ors . 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.PC, 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 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.PC 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 ::: Downloaded on - 25/10/2019 20:25:18 :::HCHP 4 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.
5. The Apex Court in Parbatbhai Aahir alias Parbhathbhai Bhimsinghbhai Karmur and others vs. State of Gujarat and another, (2017) 9 SCC 641 summarizing the board 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.
6. The Apex Court in case Narinder Singh and others 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.
7. No doubt Section 279 of 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, Parbhai Aahir's case and Laxmi Narayan's cases supra, power of ::: Downloaded on - 25/10/2019 20:25:18 :::HCHP 5 High Court under Section 482 Cr.PC is not inhibited by the provisions of Section 320 CrPC and FIR as well as criminal proceedings can be quashed by exercising inherent powers .
under Section 482 CrPC, if 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.
8. In present case, complainant/victim Vanshika respondent No.2 has also appeared in person in this Court and her statement, as discussed in para-2 supra, has also been recorded in this Court, which does not disclose rash and negligent act on the part of petitioner-accused, rather reflects that even in case trial is continued, there is no probability of conviction of accused. She has also expressed her no objection, in compounding the offence, rather she has compromised the matter with petitioner-accused.
9. 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.
10. Offences in question, for material on record, do not fall in the category of offences termed to be prohibited, in the ::: Downloaded on - 25/10/2019 20:25:18 :::HCHP 6 pronouncements of Apex Court, to be compounded exercising power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. In view of statements of petitioner No.2, recorded on oath in this Court, probability of .
conviction is too remote.
11. Keeping in view nature and gravity of offence and considering facts and circumstances of the case in entirety, I am of the opinion that present petition deserves to be allowed for ends of justice and the same is allowed accordingly and FIR No. 47/2019 dated 02.03.2019,registered at Police Station Sadar (Solan) H.P., is quashed. Consequent to quashing of FIR, Case No.111/2019, titled as State vs. Kulbhushan, pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Solan, registered in pursuance thereto, is also quashed.
Petition stands disposed of in above terms.
Copy dasti.
(Vivek Singh Thakur), Judge.
October 24 2019 (Purohit) ::: Downloaded on - 25/10/2019 20:25:18 :::HCHP