Himachal Pradesh High Court
Nitish Kumar vs State Of H.P. & Others on 25 September, 2019
Author: Vivek Singh Thakur
Bench: Vivek Singh Thakur
.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Cr.MMO No. 456 of 2019
Date of Decision 25th September, 2019
_________________________________________________________________
Nitish Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. & others .... Respondents
Coram r
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, J.
Whether approved for reporting?
______________________________________________________________
For the Petitioner: Mr. Suneet Goel, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr.Desh Raj Thakur, Additional
Advocate General for respondent
No.1 and Ms. Parul Negi, Advocate,
for respondents No. 2 to 4.
Vivek Singh Thakur, J.(Oral)
Present petition has been preferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 26 of 2018 dated 1.5.2018, registered at P.S.Rakkar, District Kangra under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC and 181 of Motor Vehicles Act lodged by respondent No.2 Nikhil Thakur and consequential proceedings, if any, initiated in pursuance Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 26/09/2019 20:33:38 :::HCHP 2thereto against the petitioner. Present petition has been filed on the basis of compromise arrived at between the .
parties.
2. Petitioner/accused and respondents No. 2 to 4 along with their fathers are present in Court. The statements of complainant Nikhil Thakur as well as injured namely Gurvinder Singh and Saurabh Sharma and their fathers and petitioner Nitish Kumar have also been recorded on oath on 19th September, 2019 in the Court.
3. Complainant/respondent No.2 Nikhil Thakur as well as injured respondents No 3 and 4 Gurvinder Singh and Saurabh Sharma, in their statements recorded on oath, have stated that on the day of incident i.e. 1.5.2018 at about 3 PM, Nikhil Thakur (complainant) and Gurvinder Singh and Saurabh Sharma (injured) along with other students were returning home after school hours by walking on left side of road. They have stated that at that time, a motorcycle had come from back side, causing injuries to them and thereafter, they were shifted to hospital by other students and police had recorded statement of Nikhil Thakur, on the basis of which FIR No. 0026 dated 1.5.2018 ::: Downloaded on - 26/09/2019 20:33:38 :::HCHP 3 was registered in P.S. Rakkar. They have also stated that later on, from other school students being spot witnesses, .
the number of motorcycle and the name of rider thereof as Nitish Kumar had come in their knowledge. They have further stated that they were not knowing Nitish Kumar personally before accident and as motorcycle had hit them from back side, they had not noticed him driving the motorcycle on the spot at the time of accident.
4 It is also stated by complainant as well as injured that because now petitioner Nitish Kumar has apologized for his act and he has repentance for his act and he has also undertaken to be careful in future, therefore, they have agreed to forgive him. They have also stated that they are deposing in this Court out of their free will and without any coercion and external pressure.
5 S/Shri Ajay Thakur, Vijay Kumar and Sanjeev Kumar, fathers of respondents No. 2 to 4 respectively, vide separate statements placed on record, by endorsing the above referred statements to be true and correct have stated that they are competent to enter into compromise on behalf of their sons and since petitioner is also a young boy ::: Downloaded on - 26/09/2019 20:33:38 :::HCHP 4 and he has repentance for accident caused by him wherein their sons were injured and the fact that he has tendered .
apology to their sons, who have agreed to forgive him, they, on behalf of their sons, have also agreed to compound the case. They have also stated that they are making statements out of their free will and without any coercion and external pressure.
6 Petitioner Nitish Kumar, in his statement, recorded on oath, has endorsed that statements of Nikhil Thakur (complainant) as well as Gurvinder Singh and Saurav Sharma (injured) and their fathers respectively as true and correct. He has stated that he has repentance for the accident and had he been careful, it could have been avoided and he has undertaken not to repeat such accident again and to be careful in future and to drive the motorcycle or any other vehicle with utmost care. He has further stated that he has apologized for his act to respondents No. 2 to 4 and their parents and since they have agreed for compounding the case, therefore, keeping in view his future, permission to compound the offence be granted. He has endorsed his deposition in the Court out of free will, ::: Downloaded on - 26/09/2019 20:33:38 :::HCHP 5 consent and also without any threat, coercion or pressure etc. .
7. It is contended on behalf of respondent-State that 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.PC.
8 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 ::: Downloaded on - 26/09/2019 20:33:38 :::HCHP 6 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 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.
9 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 ::: Downloaded on - 26/09/2019 20:33:38 :::HCHP 7 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 Sections 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 and Laxmi Narayan's cases supra, power of 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.
11. In present case, complainant and injured as well as their fathers have appeared in person in the Court and have pardoned the petitioner for his act as petitioner has repentance for it and also endorsed the compromise with ::: Downloaded on - 26/09/2019 20:33:38 :::HCHP 8 their free consent and will without any coercion. It is also stated by complainant and two injured persons that on the .
spot, they did not notice that it was accused/petitioner Nitish who was driving the motorcycle but they came to know about him from other students. The statements of complainant and injured as well as their fathers recorded on oath in the Court also disclose that even in case criminal proceedings are allowed to continue, there is no probability of conviction of accused. It is also stated by fathers of complainant and injured that petitioner is also a young boy, therefore, keeping in view his career and the fact that he has apologized from their children, they are not interested to continue with criminal proceedings against accused.
12. Offence in question does not fall in the category of offences prohibited for compounding in terms of the pronouncements of the Apex Court by exercising power under Section 482 of the CrPC. In view of statements of respondent No. 2-complainant and injured recorded on oath in this Court, probability of conviction is also too remote.
::: Downloaded on - 26/09/2019 20:33:38 :::HCHP 913. Keeping in view nature and gravity of offence and considering the fact that petitioner is a young boy and .
in case the criminal proceedings are allowed to continue, it would mar his career, 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.26 of 2018, dated 1.5.2018 registered at Police Station, Rakkar, District Kangra, H.P. is quashed. Consequent to quashing of FIR, criminal proceeding against accused in case No. 87 of 2018 pending before learned Judicial Magistrate 2 nd Class, Dehra, District Kangra H.P. are also quashed. Petition stands disposed of in above terms.
September 25, 2019 (Vivek Singh Thakur)
(ms) Judge
::: Downloaded on - 26/09/2019 20:33:38 :::HCHP