Himachal Pradesh High Court
Virender Singh vs State Of H.P. And Others on 2 August, 2017
Author: Vivek Singh Thakur
Bench: Vivek Singh Thakur
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr. MMO No. 286 of 2017
Decided on : 2.08.2017
.
____________________________________________________
Virender Singh ......Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others .....Respondents
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?_____
For the petitioner : Mr. Ashok K. Tyagi, Advocate.
For respondents No.1 to 3 : Mr. Rupinder Thakur,
r Additional Advocate General
with Mr.Pankaj Negi, Deputy
Advocate General.
For respondents No. 4 & 5 : Mr. Dheeraj K. Vashishat,
Advocate.
Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge (Oral)
This petition has been filed by petitioner-
accused, for quashing the FIR No. 403 of 2015 registered under Sections 279, 337 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 187 of Motor Vehicles Act with Police Station, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P., and criminal proceedings initiated in pursuance thereto in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No.2, Paonta ::: Downloaded on - 04/08/2017 23:57:13 :::HCHP Sahib, on the basis of compromise, (Annexure P-2) dated 17.07.2017, arrived at between petitioner-accused and .
complainant-respondent No. 4 along with injured Salamat Begum.
2. Respondent No. 4 and injured, duly identified by their counsel, present in person in Court today, endorse compromise, (Annexure P-2) and in their statements, recorded on oath in this Court, have not only reiterated signing of the compromise by them and accused with free consent and will without any coercion and pressure but also deposed to the effect that the accident had not occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of accused.
Complainant has deposed that he along with his mother injured Smt. Salamat Begum was going on the main road and petitioner/accused, who is also resident of our village, had come on motor cycle from a narrow side lane and hit their motor cycle from the side, causing injuries to him and his mother. He further stated that they were taken to hospital in Ambulance 108 and at that time what was observed by him he explained to the police officer, whereupon FIR No. 403 of 2015 was registered at P.S. Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur and at that time, he had not noticed the accused and his father in hospital and thought ::: Downloaded on - 04/08/2017 23:57:13 :::HCHP that petitioner/accused ran away from the spot. But later on it came to his notice, as informed by passers by, that .
petitioner/accused and his father were present on the spot and also in the hospital and accident did not occur due to rash and negligent driving of the petitioner, but probably because of the errof of judgment in rush of traffic, so he is not sure that accident had occurred because of fault of petitioner. The deposition of injured namely Smt. Salamat Begum, is also to the same effect.
3. 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.
4. 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 ::: Downloaded on - 04/08/2017 23:57:13 :::HCHP 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 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.
5. The Apex Court, in case Narinder Singh and Ors.
Vs. State of Punjab and Ors. (2014) 6 SCC 466, has sum up and laid down principles, by which the High Court would be ::: Downloaded on - 04/08/2017 23:57:13 :::HCHP 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.
6. No doubt Section 279 of IPC is not compoundable under Section 320 Cr. P.C. However, as explained by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh's and Narinder Singh's cases supra, power of High Court under Section 482 CrPC 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.
7. In present case, complainant and injured have appeared in person in the Court and have endorsed the compromise filed with petition duly signed by them and accused with free consent and will without any coercion.
The statement of complainant and injured recorded on oath ::: Downloaded on - 04/08/2017 23:57:13 :::HCHP in the Court, do not disclose the rash and negligent driving of accused, rather reflect that even in case criminal .
proceedings are allowed to continue, there is no probability of conviction of accused. It is also stated by complainant that the FIR was lodged on the basis of his observation which he feels not to be correct as he is not sure that accused had occurred because of fault of petitioner/accused. Respondent No. 4 as well as injured have categorically stated that in these circumstances, they are not interested to continue with criminal proceedings against accused.
8. 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.
9. 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 accordingly and FIR No.403 of 2015, dated 21.11.2015 registered under Sections 279, 337 IPC and under Section ::: Downloaded on - 04/08/2017 23:57:13 :::HCHP 187 of Motor Vehicles Act at Police Station, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P. is quashed. Consequent to quashing .
of FIR, criminal proceeding against accused in case No. 100 of 2016 pending before learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No.2, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur H.P. are also quashed. Petition stands disposed of in above terms.
(Vivek Singh Thakur) Judge August 2, 2017(ms) ::: Downloaded on - 04/08/2017 23:57:13 :::HCHP