Himachal Pradesh High Court
Paramjeet vs State Of H.P. And Others on 9 April, 2021
Bench: Vivek Singh Thakur
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr.MMO No. 109 of 2021
.
Date of decision: 9.4.2021
Paramjeet .....Petitioner.
Versus
State of H.P. and others. ..... Respondents.
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the Petitioner: Mr.Ashwani Kaundal, Advocate, through
Video Conferencing.
For the Respondents: Mr.Gaurav Sharma, Deputy Advocate
General, for respondent No. 1.
Mr.Diwakar Dev Sharma, Advocate vice
Mr.Rahul Thakur, Advocate, for
respondents No. 2 and 3.
Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge (Oral).
This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure has been filed by the petitioners for quashing of FIR No. 398
of 2020 dated 20.10.2020, registered at Police Station, Sadar Una
District, Una, H.P., under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC & 181 of M.V. Act
and consequential proceedings, if any.
2. Petitioner as well as respondents No.2 and 3 were present in
the Court on 3.3.2021and have been identified as such by their
respective counsel(s).
3. Respondent No. 2/complainant Bhupinder Singh in his
statement has deposed that, on the date of incident i.e. 20.10.2020, he
was accompanying his nephew (Bhanja)/respondent No. 3 Jagdeep
Singh on his scooty and when they were going on Una-Nangal road,
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes
then Scooty being driven by petitioner Paramjeet, had struck with their
scooty and resultantly, riders of both scooties had fallen on road, which
.
had resulted into injuries to Jagdeep Singh and at that time out of anger
and agony, he had lodged the FIR against the petitioner, but by the
passage of time, with intervention of others, they have amicably settled
the matter and now he does not want to proceed further with criminal
proceedings against the petitioner and, therefore, he and Jagdeep have
compromised the matter with Paramjeet.
r He has endorsed his
signatures on the compromise. He has further stated that he has
entered into compromise and also deposing, out of his free will,
consent and also without any external pressure, coercion or threat of any
kind.
4. Respondent No. 3 Jagdeep Singh in his statement has
endorsed the statement made by complainant Bhupinder Singh to be
true and correct and has further stated that he has entered into and
signed the compromise out of his free will, consent, and also without any
kind of threat, coercion or pressure etc.
5. Petitioner in his statement has endorsed the statement
made by complainant Bhupinder Singh (respondent No. 2) to be true
and has further stated that he has entered into and signed the
compromise out of his free will, consent, and also without any kind of
threat, coercion or pressure etc.
6. Response by way of status report has been filed on behalf
of State. It is contended on behalf of respondent-State that
petitioner/accused is not entitled to invoke inherent jurisdiction of this
Court to exercise its power on the basis of compromise arrived at
between the parties with respect to an offence not compoundable under
Section 320 Cr.P.C.
.
7. It is apt to record herein that a three Judges Bench of the
Apex Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Others reported in
(2012) 10 SCC 303, explaining that High Court has inherent power
under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with no statutory
limitation including Section 320 Cr.P.C., has held that these powers are
to be exercised to secure the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of
process of any Court and these powers can be exercised to quash
criminal proceedings or complaint or FIR in appropriate cases where
offender and victim have settled their dispute and for that purpose no
definite category of offence can be prescribed. However, it is also
observed that Courts must have due regard to nature and gravity of the
crime and criminal proceedings in heinous and serious offences or
offence like murder, rape and dacoity etc. should not be quashed
despite victim or victim family have settled the dispute with offender.
Jurisdiction vested in High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is held to be
exercisable for quashing criminal proceedings in cases having
overwhelming and predominatingly civil flavour particularly offences
arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil partnership, or such
like transactions, or even offences arising out of matrimony relating to
dowry etc., family disputes or other such disputes where wrong is
basically private or personal nature where parties mutually resolve their
dispute amicably. It was also held that no category or cases for this
purpose could be prescribed and each case has to be dealt with on its
own merit but it is also clarified that this power does not extend to crimes
against society.
.
8. The Apex Court in Parbatbhai Aahir alias Parbathbhai
Bhimsinghbhai Karmur and others vs. State of Gujarat and another,
(2017) 9 SCC 641 summarizing the broad principles regarding inherent
powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has recognized that
these powers are not inhibited by provisions of Section 320 Cr.P.C.
9. The Apex Court in case Narinder Singh and Ors. Vs. State
of Punjab and Others reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 and also in State
of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and Others (2019) 5 SCC
688 has summed up and laid down principles, by which the High Court
would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between
the parties and exercise 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 criminal
proceedings.
10. No doubt Sections 279 IPC is not compoundable under
Section 320 Cr. P.C. However, as explained by Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Gian Singh's, Narinder Singh's, Parbatbhai Aahir's and Laxmi
Narayan's cases supra, power of High Court under Section 482 Cr.PC
is not inhibited by the provisions of Section 320 Cr.P.C. and FIR as well
as criminal proceedings can be quashed by exercising inherent powers
under Section 482 Cr.PC, if it is warranted in given facts and
circumstances of the case for ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the
process of any Court, even in those cases which are not compoundable
where parties have settled the matter between themselves.
11 In Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab, (2008) 4 SCC
582, the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasized and advised that in the
.
matter of compromise in criminal proceedings, keeping in view of nature
of this case, to save the time of the Court for utilizing to decide more
effective and meaningful litigation, a commonsense approach, based on
ground realities and bereft of the technicalities of law, should be applied.
12. Offence in question, for material on record, does not fall in
the category of offences termed to be prohibited, in the pronouncements
of Apex Court, to be compounded exercising power under Section 482
of the Cr.P.C. Further considering statement of complainant recorded
on oath in the Court, it is apparent that no fruitful purpose is going to be
served by continuing criminal proceedings in reference.
13. Keeping in view the ratio of law laid down by the Hon'ble
Apex Court and considering facts of case in its entirety, I am of
considered view that it is a fit case for allowing the petition. Therefore,
matter is permitted to be compounded. Consequently, FIR No. 398 of
2020, dated 20.10.2020, registered at Police Station Sadar Una, District
Una, H.P., is quashed. Consequent to quashing of FIR No. 398 of 2020,
dated 20.10.2020, criminal proceedings, if any, arising consequent
thereto also stand quashed.
14. Petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so also
pending applications, if any.
Copy Dasti.
9th April, 2021 (Vivek Singh Thakur),
(Keshav) Judge.
