Date Of Decision: 11.09.2024 vs State Of H.P. & Anr

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Date Of Decision: 11.09.2024 vs State Of H.P. & Anr on 11 September, 2024

Author: Sandeep Sharma

Bench: Sandeep Sharma

2024:HHC:8342 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No.879 of 2024 Date of Decision: 11.09.2024 .

_______________________________________________________ Rahul .......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. N.K.Thakur, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Karan Veer Singh, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No.1-State.

Mr. Nitish Negi, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

IO/HC Rajneesh No. 129, PS Kangra, District Kangra, HP, present in person.

_______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral):

By way of instant petition filed under Section 528 of the Baratiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, prayer has been made on behalf of petitioner-accused for quashing of FIR No. 137 of 2024, dated 21.07.2024, under Sections 281 and 125(a) of BNS, registered at Police Station Kangra, District Kangra, H.P., on the basis of the 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2024:HHC:8342 compromise arrived inter se parties, whereby parties 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 No. 2 Mr. Parshotam Chand (hereinafter 'complainant'), who alleged that on 21.07.2024 at 12:00 noon, while he had come to Samela Bazar and was present nearly Samela Post office, car bearing registration No. HP-39E-3831 came from Kangra side at high speed and hit him, as a result thereof, he fell on the ground and suffered multiple injuries. Since, above named complainant alleged that accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the petitioner-accused, FIR sought to be quashed, came to be lodged against him.

3. Before challan, if any, could be filed before the competent Court of law by the police, parties have entered into compromise, whereby they have resolved to settle the dispute amicably inter se them. In the aforesaid background, petitioner-accused has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, for quashing of FIR.

4. Pursuant to order dated 09.09.2024, respondent-State has filed status report under the signatures of Station House Officer, PS Kangra, District Kangra, H.P., wherein factum of compromise has been duly acknowledged. Alongwith aforesaid status report, police ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2024 20:32:03 :::CIS 3 2024:HHC:8342 has also placed on record statement given by the complainant, wherein he has fairly acknowledged the factum of compromise arrived .

inter se parties. Besides above, complainant has also come present and is being represented by Mr. Nitish Negi, Advocate. He 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 the dispute amicably inter se them.

He states that FIR sought to be quashed is a result of misunderstanding because 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-accused has provided necessary medical aid to him and incurred entire medical expenditure, he does not wish to prosecute the case further and as such, 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 admits his signatures thereupon. His statement is taken on record.

5. After having heard aforesaid statement made on oath by the complainant, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, fairly states that no fruitful purpose would be served in case ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2024 20:32:03 :::CIS 4 2024:HHC:8342 FIR is allowed to sustain. 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., as 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 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 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 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2024 20:32:03 :::CIS 5 2024:HHC:8342 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 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.

2024:HHC:8342

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 depravity nor are they against the society. Hon'ble Apex Court further observed that when offences are 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 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2024 20:32:03 :::CIS 7 2024:HHC:8342 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 petitioner-accused do not involve offences of moral turpitude or any grave/heinous crime, rather same are petty offences, and 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 petitioner-accused and complainant have 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. 137 of 2024, dated 21.07.2024, under Sections 281 and 125(a) of BNS, at Police Station Kangra, District Kangra, H.P., is 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 September 11, 2024 (sunil) ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2024 20:32:03 :::CIS