Himachal Pradesh High Court
Surinder Kumar Son Of Shri Shesh Ram vs State Of H.P. And Another ... on 23 November, 2016
Author: P.S. Rana
Bench: P.S. Rana
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
.
Cr.MMO No. 65 of 2016
Order Reserved on 18th November 2016
Date of Order 23rd November 2016
________________________________________________________
Surinder Kumar son of Shri Shesh Ram
....Petitioner
of
Versus
State of H.P. and another ....Non-petitioners
________________________________________________________
Coram rt
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.S. Rana, J.
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
______________________________________________________________ For Petitioner: Mr. Sanjay Jaswal, Advocate.
For Non-petitioner No.1: Mr. R.K. Sharma Deputy Advocate General.
For Non-petitioner No.2: Mr.Diwakar Dev Sharma, Advocate _____________________________________________________________ P.S. Rana, Judge Order Present petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
for quashing of FIR No.225 of 2014 dated 13.12.2014 registered against the petitioner under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC at P.S. Indora District Kangra H.P. and for quashing 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:36:16 :::HCHP 2criminal proceedings pending before learned Judicial Magistrate Indora District Kangra H.P. .
Brief facts of the case
2. On 12.12.2014 complainant/injured namely Shobha Devi aged 49 years was travelling in HRTC bus No. HP-
38-6066. When injured was in process of boarding down from bus at Indora District Kangra H.P. bus stand at 11.30 AM then of accused started bus and Shobha Devi injured sustained injuries due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle upon rt public road. After investigation criminal case filed in Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Indora against accused under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC. Learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class listed the case for consideration upon charge. Criminal case is pending before learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Indora as of today.
3. Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner and learned Deputy Advocate General appearing on behalf of non-petitioner No.1 and learned Advocate appearing on behalf of non-petitioner No.2 and also perused the entire record carefully.
4. Following points arises for determination in this petition:-
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:36:16 :::HCHP 31. Whether petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is liable to be accepted as per grounds mentioned in petition?
.
2. Final Order.
Findings upon Point No.1 with reasons
5. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner that injured had sustained injuries on account of her own fault while injured was boarding down of from bus at Indora bus stand and on this ground petition be allowed is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons rt hereinafter mentioned. Fact whether injured had sustained injuries on account of her own fault or not at the time of boarding down from bus is complicated issue of facts and no judicial findings relating to complicated issue of facts can be given at this stage unless opportunity is granted to prosecution and accused to prove their case in accordance with law before learned Trial Court.
6. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner that injured has given affidavit dated 14.12.2015 and on this ground petition be allowed is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is held that no findings relating to affidavit filed by Shobha Devi injured can be given at this stage. Evidentiary value of affidavit filed by Shobha Devi will be perused by ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:36:16 :::HCHP 4 learned Trial Court during trial of case. It is well settled law that document filed by accused cannot be considered by Court .
at the initial stage of criminal case. See AIR 2005 SC 359 State of Orissa vs. Debendra Nath Padhi. Documents filed by accused can be considered by criminal Court when criminal case is listed for accused evidence as per Code of Criminal Procedure 1973
7. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on of behalf of petitioner that injured and accused want to compound the offence in order to keep harmony inter se rt parties and on this ground FIR registered under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC be compounded is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is held that offence under Section 279 IPC is non-compoundable offence and it is held that offence under Section 279 IPC is offence against public at large because offence under Section 279 IPC relates to rash or negligent driving upon public road. The word 'public has been specifically mentioned under Section 279 IPC. It is well settled law that when word 'public' is mentioned in criminal offence then criminal offence is committed against public at large.
8. It is well settled law that order of compounding criminal offence which are non-compoundable under statutory provision of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 is improper. It is also well settled law that it is against public policy to ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:36:16 :::HCHP 5 compound a non-compoundable criminal offence. See AIR 2008 SCW 7865 Ishwar Singh vs. State of M.P. See 1993 Cr.L.J. 3193 .
Mohan Singh vs. State (FB) Rajasthan.In view of the fact that offence under Section 279 IPC is offence against the public at large and in view of fact that offence under Section 279 IPC is non-compoundable offence it is not expedient in the ends of justice to allow the petition.
of
9. It is well settled law that criminal proceedings of following criminal cases should not be quashed. (1) Murder rt criminal case (2) Rape criminal case (3) Dacoity criminal case (4) Prevention of Corruption Act criminal case (5) Criminal offence under Section 307 IPC (6) Criminal offences against public at large. It is well settled law that following criminal offences should be allowed to be compounded (1) Commercial transaction criminal cases (2) Matrimonial dispute criminal cases and (3) Family dispute criminal cases. See JT 2014(4) SC 573 Narinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another. It is held that criminal offence under Section 279 of Indian Penal Code 1860 is not criminal offence against private parties simplicitor but is criminal offence against public at large. In view of above stated facts and case law cited supra point No. 1 is answered in negative.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:36:16 :::HCHP 6Point No. 2 (Final Order)
10. In view of findings upon point No. 1 above petition .
filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed. Parties are directed to appear before learned Trial Court on 15.12.2016.
Observations will not effect merits of case in any manner and will be strictly confine for disposal of present petition. File of learned Trial Court along with certify copy of order be sent of back forthwith. Cr.MMO No. 65 of 2016 is disposed of. Pending miscellaneous application(s) if any also stands disposed of.
rt
November 23,2016 (P.S. Rana)
ms. Judge
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:36:16 :::HCHP