Himachal Pradesh High Court
Date Of Decision: 15.07.2024 vs State Of H.P. & Ors on 15 July, 2024
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
2024:HHC:5238 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No.617 of 2024 Date of Decision: 15.07.2024 .
_______________________________________________________ Jagjit Ram .......Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors.
.....Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Sunny Dhatwalia, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocate Generals, for respondent No.1-State.
Mr. Dhiraj Thakur, Advocate, for respondents No. 2 & 3.
_______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral):
By way of instant petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for quashing of FIR No.39 of 2024, dated 29.04.2024, under Sections 279 & 337 of Indian Penal Code and Section 187 of Motor Vehicles Act, registered at Police Station Barsar, District Hamirpur, H.P., as well as consequent proceedings, if any, pending adjudication in the competent court of law, on the basis of the compromise arrived 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?::: Downloaded on - 16/07/2024 20:30:53 :::CIS 2
inter se parties, whereby they have resolved to settle their dispute amicably inter se them.
.
2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record are that FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings came to be lodged at the behest of respondent/complainant No. 2 Mr. Malkiat Singh (hereinafter to be referred to as 'complainant'), who alleged that on 28.04.2024 at about 10:15 p.m., while he was present near Fauji Dhaba, scooty bearing registration No. DL-9SBK-0833 came from Bijjar side, in the meantime one Bolero Camper bearing registration No. HP-23B-7315 being driven by the petitioner-accused came at high speed from Garli side and hit scooty from driver's side, as a result thereof, scooty and driver of the same fell on the ground and suffered serious injuries. Since, above named complainant alleged that accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the petitioner-accused, FIR sought to be quashed, came to be lodged against him. In the aforesaid background, FIR, as detailed herein above, came to be lodged against the petitioner-accused under relevant provision of Indian Penal Code.
3. Though, after completion of investigation, Police has already presented challan in the competent court of law against the petitioner-accused, but before same could be taken to its logical end, complainant, respondent No. 3 and petitioner-accused named in the ::: Downloaded on - 16/07/2024 20:30:53 :::CIS 3 FIR have entered into compromise, whereby they have resolved to settle their dispute amicably inter se them and as such, petitioner-
.
accused has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, for quashing of FIR as well as consequent proceedings, if any, pending adjudication in the competent court of law.
4. Though, vide order dated 08.07.2024, respondent-State was directed to file status report, but the same is awaited.
Respondent No. 2 i.e. complainant and injured Pawan Kumar have come present and are being represented by Mr. Dhiraj Thakur, Advocate. Complainant states on oath that he of his own volition and without any external pressure has entered into compromise with the petitioner-accused, whereby both the parties have resolved to settle their dispute amicably inter se them. He states that accident did not occur due to rash and negligent driving of the petitioner-accused, rather same took place on account of error of judgment. He states that since injured Pawan Kumar has already recovered from the injuries suffered by him, coupled with the fact that he has been duly compensated qua damage caused to the vehicle and as such, he shall have no objection in case, prayer made for quashing of FIR through instant petition is accepted and petitioner-accused is acquitted of charges framed against him. While admitting contents of ::: Downloaded on - 16/07/2024 20:30:53 :::CIS 4 compromise placed on record to be correct, he also admit his signatures thereupon. His statement is taken on record.
.
5. Respondent No. 3 states on oath that he of his own volition and without any external pressure has entered into compromise with the petitioner-accused, whereby both the parties have resolved to settle their dispute amicably inter se them. He states that accident did not occur due to rash and negligent driving of the petitioner-accused, rather same took place on account of error of judgment. He states that he has already recovered from the injuries suffered by him, coupled with the fact that he has been duly compensated qua damage caused to his vehicle and as such, he shall have no objection, in case, prayer made for quashing of FIR through instant petition is accepted and petitioner-accused is acquitted of charges framed against him. While admitting contents of compromise placed on record to be correct, he also admit his signatures thereupon. His statement is also taken on record.
6. After having heard aforesaid statements made on oath by complainant and respondent No. 3, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, fairly states that no fruitful purpose would be served in case FIR as well as consequent proceedings pending adjudication in the competent court of law are allowed to sustain, rather pendency of the same may further widen the rift inter ::: Downloaded on - 16/07/2024 20:30:53 :::CIS 5 se parties. He further states that otherwise also chances of conviction of the petitioner-accused are very remote and bleak on account of .
statements made by complainant and respondent No. 3 and as such, this court may proceed to pass appropriate orders.
7. The question, which now needs consideration is "whether FIR in question can be ordered to be quashed when Hon'ble Apex Court in Narinder Singh and others versus State of Punjab and another (2014) 6 SCC 466 has specifically held that power under Section 482 Cr.P.C (hereinafter to be referred to as the "Code") is not to be exercised in the cases which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., as such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society? "
8. At this stage, it would be relevant to take note of the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Narinder Singh (supra), whereby the Hon'ble Apex Court has formulated guidelines for accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings. Perusal of judgment, referred above, clearly depicts that in para 29.1, Hon'ble Apex Court has returned the findings that power conferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under ::: Downloaded on - 16/07/2024 20:30:53 :::CIS 6 Section 320 Cr.P.C. No doubt, under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the High Court has inherent power to quash criminal proceedings even in those .
cases which are not compoundable and where the parties have settled the matter between themselves, however, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with great caution. In para Nos. 29 to 29.7 of the judgment Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down certain parameters to be followed, while compounding offences.
9. Careful perusal of para 29.3 of the judgment suggests that such a power is not to be exercised in the cases which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Apart from this, offences committed under special statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by Public Servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender. On the other hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes may be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves. Aforesaid view taken by Hon'ble Apex Court has been further reiterated in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and anr. (2012) 10 SCC 303.
::: Downloaded on - 16/07/2024 20:30:53 :::CIS 710. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case Gian Singh supra has held that power of the High Court in quashing of the criminal .
proceedings or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent power is distinct and different from the power of a Criminal Court to compound the offences under Section 320 Cr.P.C. Even in the judgment passed in Narinder Singh's case, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that while exercising inherent power of quashment under Section 482 Cr.P.C the Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime and its social impact and it cautioned the Courts not to exercise the power for quashing proceedings in heinous and serious offences of mental depravity, murder, rape, dacoity etc. However subsequently, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Dimpey Gujral and Ors. vs. Union Territory through Administrator, UT, Chandigarh and Ors. (2013) 11 SCC 497 has further reiterated that continuation of criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law because the alleged offences are not heinous offences showing extreme depravity nor are they against the society. Hon'ble Apex Court further observed that when offences are of a personal nature, burying them would bring about peace and amity between the two sides.
11. Hon'ble Apex Court in its judgment dated 4th October, 2017, titled as Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others versus State of Gujarat and Another, passed in ::: Downloaded on - 16/07/2024 20:30:53 :::CIS 8 Criminal Appeal No.1723 of 2017 arising out of SLP(Crl) No.9549 of 2016, reiterated the principles/ parameters laid down in Narinder .
Singh's case supra for accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings.
12. In the case at hand also, offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioner do not involve offences of moral turpitude or any grave/heinous crime, rather same are petty offences, and as such, this Court deems it appropriate to quash the FIR as well as consequential proceedings thereto, especially keeping in view the fact that the petitioner, complainant and respondent No. 3 have compromised the matter inter se them, in which case, possibility of conviction is remote and no fruitful purpose would be served in continuing with the criminal proceedings.
13. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court (supra), FIR No.39 of 2024, dated 29.04.2024, under Sections 279 & 337 of Indian Penal Code and Section 187 of Motor Vehicles Act, registered at Police Station Barsar, District Hamirpur, H.P. , as well as consequent proceedings, if any, pending adjudication in the competent court of law are quashed and set aside. Accused is acquitted of the charges framed against him.
::: Downloaded on - 16/07/2024 20:30:53 :::CIS 914. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms, alongwith all pending applications.
.
(Sandeep Sharma),
Judge
July 15, 2024
(sunil)
r to
::: Downloaded on - 16/07/2024 20:30:53 :::CIS