Nagar vs Unknown
2021 Latest Caselaw 5533 HP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
                ON THE 2nd DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
                              BEFORE




                                                        .

            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIVEK SINGH THAKUR
      CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION (MAIN) U/S 482 CRPC No. 143 OF 2020

BETWEEN:-





     SH.SHASHWAT CHADHA, SON OF
     SH.RAJESH CHADHA, RESIDENT
     OF HOUSE NO. 73/14, SUBASH





     NAGAR, SHAHBAAD MARKAND,
     DISTRICT KURUKSHETRA.                                  ....PETITIONER

     (BY SH. RAVI TANTA, ADVOCATE.)

     AND

1.   STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH.
2.   SH. BHARART GULATI SON OF SH.
     HARISH GULATI, RESIDENT OF


     HOUSE NO. 1099/1, SHYAM NAGAR,
     MODEL TOWN, YAMUNA NAGAR,
     HARYANA.




3.   MISS YUKTI PUJARA DAUGHTER
     OF SH. SUSHIL PUJARA, RESIDENT





     OF HOUSE NO. 167/15, NEAR
     VAISHAV SCHOOL, VIJAY COLONY,
     HUDA 11, SHAHBAAD MARKAND,





     DISTRICT KURUKSHETRA,
     HARYANA.

4.   SH. PRANAV SHARMA, SON OF SH.
     NAND KISHORE SHARMA, HOUSE
     NO. 76, WARD NO. 2, KASHMIRI
     MOHALLA, AKHNOOR, JAMMU.
5.   ANMIT KAUR, DAUGHTER OF
     TEJENDER PAL SINGH RESIDENT
     OF HOUSE NO. 171/7, SAS COLONY,
     PAUNTA SAHIB, DISTRICT
     SIRMOUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH.                        ....RESPONDENTS
     (BY SH. ANIL JASWAL,
     ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL
     FOR RESPONDENT NO. 1.)
     (BY MS.KUSUMLATA, ADVOCATE,
     FOR RESPODNENT NO. 2.)

     Whether approved for Reporting?




                                       ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:22:22 :::CIS
                                     2               Cr.MMO No. 143 of 2020



             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 Shashwat Chadha, on the basis of compromise arrived at

between him and respondents No. 2 to 5 Bharat Gulati, Yukti Pujara,

Pawan Sharma and Anmit Kaur for quashing of FIR No. No. 15 of 2019,

dated 25.1.2019, registered in Police Station Barmana, District Bilaspur,

Himachal Pradesh, under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal

Code (in short 'IPC') and consequent proceedings arising thereto.

2. Petitioner Shashwat Chadha, respondent No. 2/Complainant

Bharat Gulati, and respondents No. 3 to 5 Yukti Pujara, Pranav Sharma

and Anmit Kaur (occupants of vehicle) are present in the Court today

(2.12.2021). They have been duly identified by their respective counsel.

Their statements, on oath, have been recorded separately.

3. In his statement, complainant-respondent No.2 Bharat Gulati

Kumar has stated on 20.1.2019 they had gone to Manali and when they

were returning from Manali to Shimla on 24.1.2019, they had started

from Manali at about 6:30 P.M. and when vehicle reached near Jukhala,

there was a bridge and due to sharp curve on the edge of the bridge, the

vehicle could not be controlled and had fallen in Khud, which caused

injuries to occupants of the vehicle. He has further stated that petitioner

Mr.Shashwat Chadha was driving the vehicle and along with him Pranav

Sharma, Anmit Kaur and Yukti Pujara were also traveling and they have

also received injuries and that at the time of accident, he was under

impression that accident had taken place due to rash and negligent

driving of petitioner Shashwat Chadha, but later on Shashwat Chadha

had explained the cause of accident to him and he also recollected that

.

there was a blind curve on the edge of the bridge and they were not

familiar to the road and the accident had taken place due to error of

judgment and, therefore, he is of the opinion that accident did not take

place on account of rash and negligent driving of petitioner and, thus, he

and other occupants of the Car are not interested to continue Criminal

proceedings against Shashwat Chadha and prayer for permission to

withdraw the complaint for quashing the FIR and Criminal Proceedings

arising thereto has been made. He has further stated that he has

entered into compromise and 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 Shashwat Chadha has stated

that he was driving the vehicle on the date of accident, which had taken

place due to error of judgment. He has undertaken to be more careful in

future to avoid repetition of such accident. 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. In their joint statement respondents No. 3 to 5 Yukti Pujara,

Pranav Sharma and Anmit Kaur have endorsed the statement of

respondent No. 2/complainant Bharat Gulati to be true and correct and

expressed their no objection for quashing the FIR. They have further

stated that they have deposed in this Court, out of their free will, consent

and without any external pressure, coercion or threat of any kind.

6. It is contended on behalf of respondent No.1-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. 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.

8. 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

9. to these powers are not inhibited by provisions of Section 320 Cr.P.C.

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.

10. 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.

.

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

12. to ground realities and bereft of the technicalities of law, should be applied.

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.

13. 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. 15 of 2019, dated

25.1.2019, registered in Police Station Barmana, District Bilaspur,

Himachal Pradesh is quashed. Consequent to quashing of FIR, criminal

proceedings pending initiated against petitioner-accused in pursuance

thereto, are also quashed.

14. Petition stands disposed of in above terms, so alo pending

applications, if any.

15. 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),





 nd
2     December, 2021                            Judge.
        (Keshav)





                      r       to