Himachal Pradesh High Court
Tehsil Dhariwal Tehsil vs Unknown on 26 August, 2021
Bench: Vivek Singh Thakur
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
ON THE 26TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021
BEFORE
.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIVEK SINGH THAKUR
CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION (MAIN) U/S 482 CRPC No. 345 OF 2021
BETWEEN:-
SH. JAGDEEP SINGH S/O SH.
JASVINDER SINGH, R/O VILLAGE &
P.O. PUROWAL JATTAN, SUB-
TEHSIL DHARIWAL TEHSIL,
DISTRICT GURDASPUR PUNJAB
PIN-143519, AGED ABOUT 26
YEARS OCCUPATION
TRANSPORTER DRIVER. ....PETITIONER
(BY RAJESH KUMAR PARMAR,
ADVOCATE.)
AND
1. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH.
2. SH. LAVEEN VERMA,
S/O SH.PURAN CHAND VERMA, R/O
HBC SANJAULI, SHIMLA URBAN (T)
SHIMLA H.P. PIN 171006. ....RESPONDENTS
(BY MS. DIVYA SOOD,
DEPUTY ADVOCATE GENERAL,
FOR RESPODNENT NO. 1.)
(NONE FOR RESPONDENT NO. 2.)
Whether approved for Reporting?
This petition coming on for admission 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 on the basis of compromise deed (Annexure P-2) arrived at
between him and respondent No.2 Laveen Verma, for quashing of FIR
No. 235 of 2020, dated 24.9.2020, registered in Police Station Dhalli,
under Sections 279, 337 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') and
consequent proceedings arising thereto.
.
2. Petitioner Jagdeep Singh and complainant-respondent No.2
Laveen Verma are present in person in the Court and their statements,
on oath, have been recorded separately.
3. In his statement, complainant-respondent No.2 Laveen
Verma has stated that he is complainant in present case and FIR has
been registered on the basis of telephonic information given by him on
emergency number 108, which was diverted to Police Station Dhalli and
thereafter Police had come on the spot and his statement under Section
154 Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein he had deposed that he had not
witnessed the occurrence of accident, rather he had gone out of the
room on hearing loud sound and had seen the truck fallen in the Nalla
and he does not know the cause of accident and therefore, he is not in a
position to say that this accident had taken place on account of rash and
negligent driving of petitioner and petitioner had told him that a stray dog
had come on the road suddenly and while trying to save the said dog,
the truck had fallen in the gorge and, therefore, he is of the opinion that
accident had not taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of
the petitioner and, as such, he does not intend to continue with present
proceedings. He has further stated that he 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 has endorsed the statement
made by complainant-respondent No.2 Laveen Verma to be true and
correct. He has further stated that he 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
petitioners-accused are 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.
6.
Three Judges Bench of the Apex Court in Gian Singh Vs.
State of Punjab and Ors. 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.PC, 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.PC 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.
7. The Apex Court in Parbatbhai Aahir alias Parbhathbhai
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.
8. The Apex Court in case Narinder Singh and others 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.
9. No doubt Section 279 of 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 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.
10. 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.
11. Offences in question, for material on record, do not fall in the
category of offence termed to be prohibited, in terms of the
pronouncements of Apex Court, to be compounded, exercising power
under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
12. Keeping in view nature and gravity of offence and
considering facts and circumstances of the case in entirety, I am of the
opinion that present petition deserves to be allowed for ends of justice
and the same is allowed accordingly and FIR No.235 of 2020, dated
24.9.2020, registered in Police Station Dhalli, Shimla, is quashed.
Consequent to quashing of FIR, criminal proceedings pending initiated
against petitioner-accused person in pursuance thereto, are also
quashed.
13. Petition stands disposed of in above terms.
14. 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),
th
26 August, 2021 Judge.
(Keshav)
r to
