Himachal Pradesh High Court
Date Of Decision: 10.07.2024 vs State Of H.P. & Anr on 10 July, 2024
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
2024:HHC:4916 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No.309 of 2024 Date of Decision: 10.07.2024 .
_______________________________________________________ Vivek Sharma .......Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Anr.
.....Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocate Generals, for respondent No.1-State.
Mr. Panku Chaudhary, Advocate, for respondent No.2.
_______________________________________________________ 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.217 of 2023, dated 14.11.2023, under Sections 279 and 337 of Indian Penal Code and Section 187 of Motor Vehicles Act, registered at Police Station Bhoranj, District Hamirpur, H.P., as well as consequent proceedings, if any, pending adjudication in the competent court of law, on the basis of the 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2024 20:32:07 :::CIS 2
compromise arrived 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. Arjun Kumar (hereinafter to be referred to as 'complainant'), who alleged that on 14.11.2023 at about 06:30 p.m. while he alongwith his wife was going to in-laws house on his scooty bearing registration No. HP74A-4291, and had reached Bassi bazar, one car bearing registration No. HP-38B-0106 being driven by the petitioner-accused came in a high speed and hit his scooty, as a result of which, he and his wife fell on the ground and suffered multiple injuries. In the aforesaid background, FIR, as detailed herein above, came to be lodged against the petitioner-accused under relevant provision of Indian Penal Code/Motor Vehicles Act.
3. Though, after completion of investigation, Police has already presented challan in the competent court of law against the petitioner-accused, but before the same could be taken to its logical end, complainant and petitioner-accused named in the FIR have entered into compromise, whereby they have resolved to settle their dispute amicably intere se them and as such, petitioner-accused has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, for quashing of FIR ::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2024 20:32:07 :::CIS 3 as well as consequent proceedings, if any, pending adjudication in the competent court of law.
.
4. Pursuant to direction issued by this court, respondent-
State has filed reply, which is silent with regard to compromise, rather prayer has been made to dismiss petition on the ground that after accident petitioner-accused had fled away from the spot. Respondent No. 2, who is present in court and is being represented by Mr. Panku Chaudhary, Advocate, 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 by the petitioner-accused, rather same took place on account of error of judgment. He states that since after accident petitioner took lot of care of him as well as his wife and the entire expenditure of their treatment was borne by him, coupled with the fact that petitioner-accused has also apologized for his mistake, 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 taken on record.
::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2024 20:32:07 :::CIS 45. After having heard aforesaid statement made on oath by respondent No. 2, 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 se parties. He further states that otherwise also chances of conviction of the petitioner-accused are very remote and bleak on account of statement made by the complainant on oath and as such, this court may proceed to pass appropriate orders.
6. 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. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society?
7. 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 ::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2024 20:32:07 :::CIS 5 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 to 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 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.
8. 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 ::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2024 20:32:07 :::CIS 6 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.
9. 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 ::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2024 20:32:07 :::CIS 7 depravity nor are they against the society. Hon'ble Apex Court further observed that when offences of a personal nature, burying them .
would bring about peace and amity between the two sides.
10. 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 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.
11. In the case at hand also, offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioners do not involve offences of moral turpitude or any grave/heinous crime, rather same are petty offences, 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 petitioners, complainant has 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.
12. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court (supra), FIR No. 217 of 2023, dated 14.11.2023, under Sections 279 and 337 of Indian Penal Code and Section 187 of Motor Vehicles Act, registered at Police ::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2024 20:32:07 :::CIS 8 Station Bhoranj, 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.
13. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms, alongwith all pending applications.
(Sandeep Sharma), Judge July 10, 2024 (sunil) ::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2024 20:32:07 :::CIS