Himachal Pradesh High Court
Vishal Sharma vs State Of H.P. & Ors on 18 November, 2022
Author: Vivek Singh Thakur
Bench: Vivek Singh Thakur
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr.MMO No. 973 of 2022
.
Decided on: 18.11.2022.
Vishal Sharma
....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. & Ors ...Respondents.
Coram
For the petitioner :
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?
Mr. Sanjeev K. Suri, Advocate,
For respondent No.1to3 : Mr. Hemant Vaid, Additional
Advocate General.
For respondent No.4 : Ms. Anita Jalota, Advocate.
Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge (Oral)
This petition has been preferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 186 of 2021, dated 04.11.2021, registered under Section 279 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter in short 'IPC') at Police Station Amb, District Una, H.P. and consequent proceeding arising thereto.
2. Petitioner Vishal Sharma and respondent No. 4/complainant Ajay Kumar are present in the Court and ::: Downloaded on - 22/11/2022 20:31:30 :::CIS 2 they have been duly identified by their respective counsel.
Their statements, on oath, have been recorded separately.
.
3. In his statement, complainant respondent No.4 has stated that when accident took place during intervening night of 3rd and 4th November, 2021, at about 12:15/12:30 AM, he was transporting plastic in his truck from Kolkata to Gagret and when he reached near Dusada bridge, suspension of driver side had broken and he stopped the truck and checked it and after checking the same he drove the truck again. He has further stated that he heard a noise of striking something with the truck from the back side and saw a motorcycle driver lying on the road after hitting his motorcycle with the back side of the truck. He has further stated that the driver of motorcycle was unconscious and he was shifted to the hospital. He stated that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle by driver namely Vishal Sharma. After recovery, Vishal Sharma approached the complainant and explained the circumstances that because of fog he could not see the truck which was ::: Downloaded on - 22/11/2022 20:31:30 :::CIS 3 stopped for checking the suspension and due to this , the motorcycle collided with truck. He has also stated that on .
that day, there was dense fog and visibility was very poor and due to which accident took place and, therefore, he has decided not to pursue the criminal case against the petitioner and thus, he has compromised the matter with petitioner and has sought permission to withdraw the complaint lodged on his behalf.
4. Petitioner Vishal Sharma, endorsing the statement made by complainant as true and correct, has undertaken to be careful in future.
5. Respondent No.4 Ajay Kumar and petitioner Vishal Sharma, in their respective statements, have stated that they have compromised the matter and deposed in the Court out of their free will, consent and also without any kind of threat, coercion or pressure etc.
6. Quashing of FIR in present petition has been prayed on the basis of compromise arrived at between respondent No.4 complainant and the petitioner, photocopy whereof has been placed on record. The ::: Downloaded on - 22/11/2022 20:31:30 :::CIS 4 petitioner and the complainant have endorsed the compromise.
.
7. 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 ::: Downloaded on - 22/11/2022 20:31:30 :::CIS 5 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 mutually resolve their dispute amicably. It was also held r where parties 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 Parbhathbhai 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.
::: Downloaded on - 22/11/2022 20:31:30 :::CIS 69. 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.
10. No doubt Section 279 is not compoundable under Section 320, however, as explained by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh's, Narinder Singh's, Parbatbhai Aahir's and Laxmi Narayan's cases supra, power of High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C 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 warranted by given facts and circumstances of the case for ends of ::: Downloaded on - 22/11/2022 20:31:30 :::CIS 7 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 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.
12. Offences in question, for material on record, do not fall in the category of offence termed to be prohibited, in terms of the pronouncements of Apex Court, to be compounded, exercising power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
13. 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 ::: Downloaded on - 22/11/2022 20:31:30 :::CIS 8 accordingly and FIR No. 186 of 2021, dated 04.11.2021, registered in Police Station Amb, District Una, H.P. is .
quashed. Consequent to quashing of FIR, criminal proceedings initiated against petitioners-accused in pursuance thereto, are also quashed.
14. Petition stands disposed of in above terms.
Parties are permitted to use/produce a copy of this judgment, downloaded from the web-page of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, before the authorities concerned, and the said authorities shall not insist for production of a certified copy but if required, may verify passing of order from Website of the High Court or otherwise.
(Vivek Singh Thakur) Judge November, 18, 2022 (himani) ::: Downloaded on - 22/11/2022 20:31:30 :::CIS