Himachal Pradesh High Court
202 vs Ravi Sharma on 9 August, 2021
Bench: Vivek Singh Thakur
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT
SHIMLA
ON THE 9th DAY OF AUGUST, 2021
.
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIVEK SINGH THAKUR
CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION (MAIN) U/S 482 CRPC NO.253 OF
2021
Between:-
RAVI SHARMA S/O SH. SUKH RAM,
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE GANU,
P.O. MAHIPUR, TESHIL
DADAHU, DISTRICT SIRMAUR, H.P.
...PETITIONER
(BY SH.DAVINDER CHAUHAN JAITA, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
THROUGH SECRETARY (HOME)
TO THE GOVERNMENT OF
HIMACHAL PRADESH
(BY SH.DINESH THAKUR, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL)
2. ANKIT SHANDIL, S/O SH. L.R. SHANDIL,
RESIDENT OF VPO BALAG,
TEHSIL THEOG, DISTRICT SHIMLA, H.P.
...RESPONDENTS
( BY SH.BHIM RAJ SHARMA, ADVOCATE)
This petition coming on for orders this day, the Court
passed the following:
JUDGMENT
The instant petition, under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.PC') has been
filed by petitioner Ravi Sharma, on the basis of compromise deed
(Annexure P-2) arrived at between him and respondent No.2-Ankit
Shandil, for quashing of FIR No.149 of 2017, dated 23.08.2017,
registered in Police Station Thoeg, District Shimla, H.P., under
Section 407 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') and consequent
proceedings arising thereto in Case No.51/1 of 2018, titled as State
vs. Ravi Sharma, pending before learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Thoeg, District Shimla, H.P.
.
2. Petitioner-Ravi Sharma and complainant-respondent
No.2-Ankit Shandil are present in person in the Court today, who
have been identified by their respective learned counsel.
Statements of respondent No.2-Ankit Shandil as well as petitioner-
Ravi Sharma, on oath, have been recorded today in the Court.
3. In his statement complainant-respondent No.2-Ankit
Shandil has stated that he is owner of Truck No.HP-63-4196 (Eicher
1059) and petitioner was driver with the said Truck in the year 2017
and during that period his Truck was loaded with Apple through
Truck Union Jubbal and it was dispatched to Chandigarh, but the
Truck did not reach Chandigarh, whereupon, he had lodged FIR
No.149 of 2017 against the driver i.e. present petitioner. He has
further stated that lateron, it came to know that petitioner had sold
the apple to third party, but after realizing his mistake the
petitioner has made the payment of entire losses to him and,
therefore, he has decided to compromise the matter and has
agreed to withdraw the complaint as per compromise. He has
further stated that he has signed the compromise and has deposed
in this Court, out of his free will, consent and without any external
pressure, coercion or threat of any kind.
4. In his statement, petitioner-Ravi Sharma has stated
that he has endorsed the statement made by respondent No.2-Ankit
Shandil to be true and correct. He has further stated that he has
entered into compromise without any pressure and has signed the
same voluntarily and has deposed in this Court, out of his free will,
consent and without any external pressure, coercion or threat of
any kind.
5. It is contended on behalf of respondent No.1-State that
.
offence in present case is compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C.
and therefore the petitioner should have approached the trial Court
for compounding of the case.
6. No doubt Section 407 of IPC is a compoundable offence
under Section 320 Cr.P.C. However, power of High Court under
Section 482 Cr.PC is not inhibited by the provisions of Section 320
CrPC and FIR as well as criminal proceedings can be quashed by
exercising inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.PC, if 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.
7. 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.
8. Now, the matter has been amicably settled between
the private parties on the basis of compromise arrived at between
them, as such, I am of the considered view that no fruitful purpose
shall be served to continue the proceedings against petitioner-
accused-Ravi Sharma. Accordingly FIR No.149 of 2017, 23.08.2017,
registered in Police Station Thoeg, District Shimla, H.P., is quashed.
Consequent to quashing of FIR, criminal proceedings in Case
No.51/1 of 2018, titled as State vs. Ravi Sharma, pending before
learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Theog, District Shimla,
.
H.P., initiated against petitioner-accused person in pursuance
thereto, are also quashed.
9. Petition stands disposed of in above terms.
10. Petitioner is permitted to produce a copy of this
judgment, downloaded from the web-page of the High Court of
Himachal Pradesh, before the authorities concerned, and the said
authorities shall not insist for production of a certified copy but if
required, may verify it from Website of the High Court.
(Vivek Singh Thakur),
Judge.
August 9, 2021
(Purohit)
