Himachal Pradesh High Court
Rajinder Kumar & Anr vs State Of H.P on 16 December, 2022
Author: Virender Singh
Bench: Virender Singh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Cr.MMO No.1093 of 2022
Decided on 16th December, 2022
Rajinder Kumar & Anr. ...Petitioners
.
Versus
State of H.P. ...Respondent
Coarm
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge
1Whether approved for reporting?
For the petitioners: Mr. Naresh Kaul, Advocate.
For the respondent: Mr. Shiv Pal Manhans, Additional
Advocate General and Mr. Bhupinder
Thakur, Deputy Advocate General.
Virender Singh, Judge (Oral)
Petitioners have filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Cr.P.C.') read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of FIR No.147 of 2019 dated 30.06.2019, registered under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC') read with Sections 177, 181 and 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'MV Act') at Police Station Haroli, District Una, H.P., as well as resultant proceedings pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Una, District Una, H.P., in case registration No. 283 of 2019, titled as State of H.P. vs. Rajinder Kumar & Anr.
::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2022 20:33:01 :::CIS 22. According to the petitioners, on 30.06.2019 petitioner No.2 Sh. Joginder Singh was driving his motor cycle and was coming from Laldi to Kungdart, whereas, petitioner No.1 Sh.
.
Rajinder Kumar was coming towards Pakki Sadak Shiv Mandir to Laldi Main Chowk and both the vehicles had collided with each other, resulting into small injuries to both the petitioners. Due to the said accident, the FIR in question has been registered. Both the petitioners, although were taken to hospital, but no x-ray were conducted, as the injuries were minor.
3. After completion of the investigation, the police has filed the challan under Sections 279 and 337 of the IPC read with Section 177, 181, 196 of the MV Act, which is stated to be pending adjudication in the Court since 2019 and no proceedings have been conducted in the said case.
4. According to the petitioners, both of them are residing in the same locality and they do not want to proceed against each other and as such, prayed that the proceedings before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Una, District Una, H.P., may kindly be closed.
5. The compromise between the petitioners is stated to have been entered with the intervention of the respectable members of the area and with a view to maintain their cordial relations.
::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2022 20:33:01 :::CIS 36. On all these submissions, they have prayed that the FIR in question as well as the proceedings resultant thereto may kindly be quashed.
.
7. Alongwith the petition, the copy of FIR and affidavits of both the petitioners have been annexed.
8. Although, the respondent-State has not filed the reply, but the prayer, so made, in the petition has been opposed by tooth and nail.
9. Today, both the petitioners have appeared before this Court and made their statements on oath. On the basis of the contents of the petition, both of them have deposed, in unequivocal terms, that the matter has been compromised between them and they do not want to proceed against each other.
10. Therefore, this Court deems it fit to consider the present petition, in the light of the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Narinder Singh and others versus State of Punjab and another, (2014) 6 Supreme Court Cases 466, 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.
11. 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 of the Cr.P.C., is to be ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2022 20:33:01 :::CIS 4 distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C.
12. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the High .
Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings, even in those cases, which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised, in view of the guiding principles as decided by Hon'ble Apex Court in Narinder Singh's case supra. The relevant para 29 of the judgment is reproduced as under:-
29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising 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 the criminal proceedings:
29.1Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution.
29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:
(i) ends of justice, or
(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court.
While exercising the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.
29.3. Such a power is not be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2022 20:33:01 :::CIS 5 private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, for offences alleged to have been 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.
.
29.4. On the other, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves.
29.5. While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases.
29.6. Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore is to be generally treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to proving the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc. Medical report in respect of injuries suffered by the victim can generally be the guiding factor. On the basis of this prima facie analysis, the High Court can examine as to whether there is a strong possibility of conviction or the chances of conviction are remote and bleak. In the former case it can refuse to accept the settlement and quash the criminal proceedings whereas in the later case it would be permissible for the High Court to accept the plea compounding the offence based on complete settlement between the parties. At this stage, the Court can also be swayed by the fact that the settlement between the parties is going to result in harmony between them which may improve their future relationship.
29.7. While deciding whether to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code or not, timings of settlement play a crucial role. Those cases where the settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged commission of offence and the matter is still under investigation, the High Court may be liberal in accepting the settlement to quash the criminal proceedings/investigation. It is because of the reason that at this stage the investigation is still on and even the charge sheet has not been filed. Likewise, those cases where the charge is framed but the evidence is yet ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2022 20:33:01 :::CIS 6 to start or the evidence is still at infancy stage, the High Court can show benevolence in exercising its powers favourably, but after prima facie assessment of the circumstances/material mentioned above. On the other hand, where the prosecution evidence is almost complete or after the conclusion of the evidence the matter is at the stage of argument, normally the High Court should refrain from exercising its power under .
Section 482 of the Code, as in such cases the trial court would be in a position to decide the case finally on merits and to come a conclusion as to whether the offence under Section 307 IPC is committed or not. Similarly, in those cases where the conviction is already recorded by the trial court and the matter is at the appellate stage before the High Court, mere compromise between the parties would not be a ground to accept the same resulting in acquittal of the offender who has already been convicted by the trial court. Here charge is proved under Section 307 IPC and conviction is already recorded of a heinous crime and, therefore, there is no question of sparing a convict found guilty of such a crime".
13. This Court is also of the view that the present case does not fall in any of the exception, which has been carved out by Hon'ble Apex Court in Narinder Singh's case supra, in para 29.3 of the judgment.
14. No doubt, the FIR in question has been registered at the instance of ASI Shiv Parkash. However, keeping in view the contents of the FIR, it seems that the FIR has been registered merely on the ground that both the vehicles of the petitioners had collided with each other. The allegations of rash and negligent driving have also been levelled against them, but it has specifically been mentioned that no witness was found at the spot.
Considering the statements, on oath, of the petitioners, qua the fact that no x-ray was conducted and they had sustained minor injuries, it is a fit case to exercise the powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. In such situation, the chances of conviction of the ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2022 20:33:01 :::CIS 7 petitioners, in the peculiar facts and circumstances, are very bleak and no useful purpose would be served by keeping the proceedings alive before the learned trial Court. Moreover, both the petitioners, .
in unequivocal terms, have deposed that they do not want to proceed against each other. In such situation, it would be the abuse of the process of law, if the proceedings keep alive.
15. The acceptance of this petition would also save the precious judicial time, which could be devoted by the learned trial Court, for the decision of some other serious matters.
16. Taking into consideration the compromise entered into between the petitioners, statements to this effect, made by the parties to the compromise, in this Court, the present petition is allowed and FIR No. 147 of 2019 dated 30.06.2019, registered under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC read with Sections 177, 181 and 196 of MV Act at Police Station Haroli, District Una, H.P., as well as resultant proceedings thereto, are quashed.
17. The affidavits, Annexures C-2 and C-3, as well as statements of the parties to the compromise, made today in the Court, shall form part of the judgment. Miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(Virender Singh) Judge December 16, 2022 (Vinod) ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2022 20:33:01 :::CIS