Himachal Pradesh High Court
Satnam Singh vs State Of H.P. And Others on 4 October, 2024
( 2024:HHC:9543 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MMO No 40 of 2024.
Reserved on: 10.09.2024.
Date of Decision: 04.10.2024.
Satnam Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others. ...Respondents
Coram
Hon'ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioner : Mr. Sunny Rawat, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Prashant Sen, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 & 2/State.
Ms. Shivani, Advocate Vice Mr. D.S. Nainta, Advocate for respondents No.3 and 4.
Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing of FIR No. 78 of 2023, dated 08.08.2023, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC) and Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as MV 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2
( 2024:HHC:9543 ) Act) at Police Station Dhanotu, District Mandi and the consequential proceedings arising out of the same. It has been asserted that the respondent No.3/victim had sustained injuries in the accident. She was referred to PGI, Chandigarh. The matter was reported to the police by respondent No.4. The petitioner provided every possible assistance to her during her treatment. The parties have settled the matter. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be quashed based on the compromise effected between the parties.
2. The statement of the informant Sahil Thakur @ Uttam Chand and victim Jhansi Devi @ Divya were recorded on 25.06.2024 in which they have stated that they had entered into a compromise with the petitioner voluntarily and without any influence from any person. They also identified their signatures on the compromise deed (Annexure P-2). The police also filed a report stating that Sahil Thakur and Uttam Chand are the same persons.
3. I have heard Mr Sunny Rawat, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr/ Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General for respondents No.1 & 2/State, Ms Shivani, Advocate vice Mr. D.S. Nainta, learned counsel for respondents No.3 and 4.
4. Mr. Sunny Rawat, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the parties have settled the matter voluntarily and 3 ( 2024:HHC:9543 ) they have executed the compromise deed. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the FIR be quashed based on the compromise between the parties.
5. Mr. Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 and 2 /State submitted that the offences involve the society and is not a private dispute. Therefore, the FIR should not be quashed.
6. Ms. Shivani, learned vice counsel for respondents No. 3 and 4 adopted the submissions of Mr. Sunny Rawant, learned counsel for the petitioner and prayed that the FIR be quashed.
7. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.
8. The statements made by the parties and the compromise deed show that the parties have entered into a compromise voluntarily without any influence from any person. This Court had already quashed the F.I.R. registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC and 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act in Sushant vs. State of H.P. 2023 HLC 531, Vikas Huda vs. State of H.P. 2023 STPL 3009, Kulwinder Singh vs. Ankush Kumar 2023 HLR384 and Nishant vs. State 2022 Suppl. Law Cases 45 and others 4 ( 2024:HHC:9543 ) based on compromise between the parties. These judgments are binding on this court.
9. Therefore, in view of these precedents, the present petition is allowed and FIR No. 78 of 2023, dated 08.08.2023, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC and Section 187 of MV Act at Police Station Dhanotu, District Mandi, H.P. is quashed. Consequent to the quashing of FIR, criminal proceedings pending/initiated against the petitioner-accused in pursuance thereto, are also quashed.
10. Petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also pending miscellaneous applications, if any.
11. Parties are permitted to produce a copy of this judgment, downloaded from the webpage of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh before the authorities concerned, and the said authorities shall not insist on the production of a certified copy but if required, may verify passing of the order from Website of the High Court.
(Rakesh Kainthla)
Judge
Digitally signed by
KARAN SINGH 4th October, 2024
GULERIA
Date: 2024.10.04 (Nikita)
14:56:12 IST