High Court of Himachal Pradesh was dealing with petition filed under Section 482 of the Cr.p.c for quashing of F.I.R under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the IPC and Section 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Brief Facts:
On 15.2.2018, when both petitioners were travelling on motorcycle going back to their house from the Institute of petitioner No.2, was sitting on back seat, as a pillion rider, when they reached near Loret College Kathog, all of sudden a stray dog came in between the road and a bus was also crossing, petitioner No.1 was left with no other option, but to apply the brakes and on application of the brakes, the motorcycle skids and got imbalanced, as such petitioner No.2, fallen down on the road and suffered injuries. Both petitioners injured are related to each other, as real brother and sister. Thereafter, statement of Smt. Krishna Devi, came to the Police Station for lodging FIR against the petitioner. Now, petitioner No.2 entered into a compromise, on the basis of Compromise Deed, stated that she does not want to pursue the case against the petitioner.
Petitioner’s Contention:
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as the parties have compromised the matter, no purpose will be served by keeping the proceedings against the petitioner and the FIR/Challan, may be quashed and set aside.
Respondent’s Contention:
Learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the offence is not compoundable, so the petition may be dismissed.
HC’s Observations And Held:
After hearing both the sides Court HC relied upon the case of B.S. Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana and another, where SC held that “if for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necessary, Section 320 would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing. It is well settled that the powers under section 482 have no limits. Of course, where there is more power, it becomes necessary to exercise utmost care and caution while invoking such powers.”
HC also relied upon the case of in Preeti Gupta and another vs. State of Jharkhand and another, where SC held that “the ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent. The tendency of implicating the husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of the criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. Experience reveals that long and protracted criminal trials lead to rancour, acrimony and bitterness in the relationship amongst the parties. The criminal trials lead to immense sufferings for all concerned.” It was further held that “permitting complainant to pursue complaint would be abuse of process of law and the complaint against the appellants was quashed.”
Court stated that even if, the trial is allowed to be continued, as the parties have compromised the matter, there are bleak chances of conviction to secure the ends of justice. Court after considering the law discussed above found that the interest of justice will be met, in case, the proceedings are quashed, as the parties have already compromised the matter.
HC ordered to quash the FIR.
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Chander Bhusan Barowalia
Case Title: Sh. Akshay Kumar v. State Of Himachal Pradesh
Case Details: CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION (MAIN) U/S 482 CRPC No.650 OF 2021
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
