Himachal Pradesh High Court
Criminal Misc. Petition (Main) ... vs Vikrant Singh on 2 September, 2021
Bench: Vivek Singh Thakur
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT
SHIMLA
ON THE 2nd DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021
.
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIVEK SINGH THAKUR
CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION (MAIN) U/S 482 CRPC NO.413 OF
2020
Between:-
KUNWAR VIKRANT SINGH
SON OF SH. SHIV DEV SINGH,
RESIDENT OF H.NO.1134/5,
TEHSIL NAHAN,
DISTRICT SIRMOUR, H.P.
PETITIONER KUNWAR VIKRANT
SINGH IS PRESENT IN PERSON
.....PETITIONER
(BY SH. KULWANT CHAUHAN,
ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
(BY SH.DINESH THAKUR, ADDITIONAL
ADVOCATE GENERAL)
2. SH.KOUSHAL
SON OF SH. GURMEET PAL,
RESIDENT OF KHIZRABAD EAST,
YAMUNA NAGAR, HARYANA-135021
3. SH. RAHUL SANDAL
SON OF SH. AJAY KUMAR,
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST
OFFICE MAJRA,
TEHSIL PAONTA SAHIB,
DISTRICT SIRMOUR, H.P.
(BY VIJAY SINGH THAKUR,
.....RESPONDENTS
ADVOCATE)
::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:00:03 :::CIS
2
RESPONDENT NO.2 KOUSHAL AND
RESPENDENT NO.3 RAHUL SANDAL
ARE PRESENT IN PERSON.
Whether approved for reporting?
.
This petition coming on for presence of parties 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-Kunwar Vikrant Singh, on the basis of
compromise deed (Annexure P-2) arrived at between him and
respondent No.2-Koushal and respondent NO.3-Rahul Sandal, for
quashing of FIR No.183 of 2019, dated 24.11.2019, registered in
Police Station Majra, District Sirmour, H.P., under Sections 279, 337
and 338 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC'), and consequent
proceedings arising thereto pending before learned Judicial
Magistrate, First Class, Court No.2, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour, in
Criminal Case No.61 of 2020, titled as State vs. Vikrant Singh.
2. Petitioner-Kunwar Vikrant Singh, respondent No.2-
Koushal and respondent No.3-Rahul Sandal are present in person in
the Court today, who have been identified by their respective
learned counsel. Statements of respondent No.2-Koushal,
respondent No.3-Rahul Sandal as well as petitioner-Kunwar Vikrant
Singh, on oath, have been recorded today in the Court.
3. In his statement, respondent No.-3 Rahul Sandal has
stated that he was driving motorcycle bearing No.HP-17E-6032 and
Koushal was pillion rider with him and at that time petitioner came
on his scooty bearing No.HP-71-5712 from Nahan side and he
turned his scooty towards the road from which they were crossing
and suddenly two vehicles had collided with each other causing
injury to him and Koushal. He has further stated that he had
sustained injury on his left arm and above the right eye and was of
.
the opinion that accident had taken place due to negligence of
driver of the scooty as he had turned the scooty without indication
and, therefore, he had lodged a complaint and lateron, petitioner
had met him and had explained the manner in which accident had
taken place and according to his explanation, it was the case of
error of judgment, but not rash and negligent driving of the
petitioner. He has further stated that he had recollected that speed
of the scooty was not high, but moderate and at that time they
failed to understand the cause of incident, but now he is of the
considered opinion that accident had not taken place due to rash
and negligent driving of the petitioner, but because of error of
judgment, and therefore, he and Koushal have compromised the
matter with the petitioner and compromise has also been reduced
into writing which is placed on record. 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, respondent No.3-Koushal has
endorsed the statement made by respondent NO.2-Rahul Sandal to
be true and correct and has stated that he has entered into
compromise without any pressure and has signed the same
voluntarily. 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 his statement, petitioner-Kunwar Vikrant Singh has
also endorsed the statements made by respondent NO.3-Rahul
.
Sandal and respondent NO.2-Koushal to be true and correct and has
undertaken to be more careful in future. He has further stated that
he has entered into compromise without any pressure and has
signed the same voluntarily. 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.
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 offences 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 these powers are not inhibited by provisions of
Section 320 Cr.P.C.
9. 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 ground realities and bereft of the technicalities
of law, should be applied.
12. 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-
Kunwar Vikrant Singh.
13. Offence in question, for material on record, does 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.
14. 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.183 of 2019,
dated 24.11.2019 registered in Police Station Majra, District
Sirmour, H.P., is quashed. Consequent to quashing of FIR, criminal
proceedings consequent thereto, pending before learned Judicial
Magistrate, First Class, Court No.2, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour, in
Criminal Case No.61 of 2020, titled as State vs. Vikrant Singh, are
also quashed.
15. Petition stands disposed of in above terms.
16. 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.
September 2, 2021
(Purohit)
