Himachal Pradesh High Court
Madan Lal Mehta Son Of Late Sh H.L.Mehta vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Another on 26 July, 2016
Author: P.S.Rana
Bench: P.S.Rana
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
.
SHIMLA:
Cr.MMO No. 15 of 2016.
Order reserved on: 23.5.2016.
Date of Order: July 26 ,2016.
Madan Lal Mehta son of late Sh H.L.Mehta. ...Petitioner.
of
Vs:
State of Himachal Pradesh and another.
rt ...Non-petitioners.
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr.Justice P.S.Rana, Judge.
Whether approved for Reporting?1yes
For petitioner: Mr.R.K.Bawa, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Amit Kumar Dhumal, Advocate.
For non-petitioner No.1:Mr.M.L.Chauhan Addl. Advocate
General.
For non-petitioner No.2 None.
P.S.Rana, Judge.
ORDER:Present petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 for quashing FIR No. 53 of 2014 dated 19.11.2014 registered under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of Indian Penal Code in police station New Shimla 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?yes ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:52:48 :::HCHP 2 District Shimla HP and for setting aside and quashing all .
consequential proceedings before learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class Court No.4 Shimla in criminal case No. RBT 62-2 of 2015 title State of HP Vs. Madan Lal
2. Brief facts of the case are that on dated of 19.11.2014 at about 9 PM at phase-3 New Shimla accused Madan Lal was driving his car bearing registration No. HP 07A 0252 in rash and negligent manner upon public way rt and hit Alto K10 HP-62 1316 and thereafter car over turned causing simple as well as grievous injuries. FIR No. 53 of 2014 dated 19.11.2014 was registered in police station new Shimla under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC. After completion of investigation, investigation report filed before learned Judicial Magistrate Shimla. Learned Judicial Magistrate issued notice of accusation under Section 279, 337 and 338 IPC. Learned Trial Court examined testimony of PW1 Promil Bhardwaj and criminal case is subjudice before learned Judicial Magistrate Shimla.
3. Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner and learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of non-petitioner No.1. Court also perused entire record carefully.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:52:48 :::HCHP 34. Following points arise for determination in .
present petition.
(1) Whether petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of petition relating to criminal offence of punishable under section 279 IPC which is criminal offence against general public?. (2) Final Order.
5. rt Findings upon point No.1 with reasons.
Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner that the case has been compromised interse parties and on the basis of out of court settlement annexure P3 dated 17.12.2015 executed between complainant Sh Shiv Thakur and accused Madan Lal petition be allowed is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Court is of the opinion that accused is facing accusation qua criminal offence punishable under section 279 IPC. It is held that criminal offence under section 279 IPC is always committed upon public way. It is held that offence under section 279 IPC is not personal criminal offence but is a criminal offence against public at large. It is held that section 279 IPC is incorporated in Indian Penal Code in order to protect public ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:52:48 :::HCHP 4 at large upon public way. Even section 279 IPC is non-
.
compoundable offence as per section 320 code of criminal procedure 1973. Criminal offences under section 279 are increasing day by day upon public way causing endanger to human life. Hon'ble Apex Court of India has held that High of Court should not grant permission to compound criminal cases which are against public at large. In view of the fact that criminal offence punishable under section 279 IPC is a rt criminal offence against society at large court is of the opinion that it is not expedient in the ends of justice to allow petition. See JT 2014 (4) SC 573 title Narinder Singh and others Vs State of Punjab and another. Hon'ble Apex Court of India held that following criminal cases should not be allowed to be compromised on the basis of out of court settlement while exercising inherent powers under Section 482 code of criminal procedure. (1) Murder criminal case (2) Rape criminal case (3) Dacoity criminal case (4) Prevention of Corruption Act case (5) 307 IPC case. (6) Criminal offence against society. It is well settled law that law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court of India is binding upon all courts as per Article 141 of Constitution of India. It is well settled law that after filing charge sheet FIR could not be quashed. See 2015 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:52:48 :::HCHP 5 (2) Him.L.R.1095 title Nancy Bhatt and another Vs. State of .
Himachal Pradesh. See 1994 SCC (Crime) 500 State of Punjab Vs. Dharam Vir Singh Jethi. See 1996 (2) SCC 199 title Vineet Narain Vs. Union of India. See 1999 (6) SCC 354 title Anukul Chandra Pradhan Vs. Union of India. See 2011 of (12) SCC 302 title Jakia Nasim Ahesan and another Vs. State of Gujarat and others. In view of above stated facts and in view of the fact that criminal offence under section 279 IPC is rt criminal offence against society at large and not personal criminal offence it is not expedient in the ends of justice to allow petition. Point No.1 is answered in negative.
Point No.2(Final Order).
6. In view of findings on point No.1 petition filed under section 482 Cr.PC is dismissed. Parties are directed to appear before learned Trial Court on 12.8.2016. File of learned Trial Court along with certified copy of order be sent back forthwith. Cr.MMO No. 15 of 2016 is disposed of. All pending application(s) if any are also disposed of.
(P.S.Rana), Judge.
July 26, 2016(R).
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:52:48 :::HCHP 6.
of rt ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:52:48 :::HCHP