Himachal Pradesh High Court
Criminal Misc. Petition (Main) ... vs Unknown on 10 September, 2021
Bench: Vivek Singh Thakur
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT
SHIMLA
ON THE 10th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021
.
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIVEK SINGH THAKUR
CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION (MAIN) U/S 482 CRPC NO.122 OF
2021
Between:-
DINESH KUMAR
S/O SH. KEHAR SINGH,
R/O VILLAGE & PO NAGHETA,
TEHSIL PAONTA SAHIB,
DISTRICT SIRMAUR, (HP)
PETITIONER DINESH KUMAR IS
PRESENT IN PERSON
.....PETITIONER
(BY SH. JEEVAN KUMAR,
ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
(BY SH.DINESH THAKUR, ADDITIONAL
ADVOCATE GENERAL)
2. BALBIR SINGH
S/O SH. HIMMAT SINGH,
R/O VILLAGE TARUWALA, P.O. &
TEHSIL PAONTA SAHIB,
DISTRICT SIRMAUR, H.P.
3. AMANPREET SINGH
S/O SH. SIRMAUR SINGH,
R/O WARD NO.2, BHUPPUR,
PAONTA SAHIB,
DISTRICT SIRMOUR, (HP).
(BY SH.AJAY SHANDIL, ADVOCATE)
.....RESPONDENTS
::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:03:38 :::CIS
2
RESPONDENT NO.2 BALBIR SINGH
AND RESPENDENT NO.3 AMANPREET
SINGH 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-Dinesh Kumar, on the basis of compromise deed
(Annexure P-2) arrived at between him and respondent No.2-Balbir
Singh and respondent No.3-Amanpreet Singh, for quashing of FIR
No.255 of 2019, dated 11.08.2019, registered in Police Station
Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour, H.P., under Sections 279, 337 and
338 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') and Section 187 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'M.V. Act'), and
consequent proceedings arising thereto.
2. Petitioner-Dinesh Kumar, respondent No.2-Balbir Singh
and respondent No.3-Amanpreet Singh are present in person in the
Court today, who have been identified by their respective learned
counsel. Statements of respondent No.2-Balbir Singh, respondent
No.3-Amanpreet Singh as well as petitioner-Dinesh Kumar, on oath,
have been recorded today in the Court.
3. In his statement, respondent No-3-Amanpreet Singh
has stated that he was driving motorcycle bearing No.HP-17D-4593
and complainant Balbir Singh was pillion rider with him and they
were coming from Nahan to Paonta Sahib and on the way, a car
bearing registration NO.HP-17E-3434 being driven by the petitioner
came from the back side and overtook their motorcycle and without
indicator it turned towards a link road Bhatawali and he (respondent
No.3) could not control his motorcycle and because of imbalance
.
caused by sudden overtaking of the petitioner, they fell down and
received injuries and lodged report with the police. He has further
stated that lateron, petitioner had approached them and explained
that it was his error of judgment as he thought that he would be
able to take a turn towards the link road without disturbing them,
and according to his explanation, they have come to the conclusion
that this incident had not occurred because of rash and negligent
act of the petitioner, but for mistaken belief, therefore, they have
compromised the matter with the petitioner and compromise has
also been reduced into writing which has been 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.2-Balbir Singh has
endorsed the statement made by Sh.Amanpreet Singh 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-Dinesh Kumar has also
endorsed the statements made by respondent No.2-Balbir Singh
and respondent No.3-Amanpreet Singh 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-
Dinesh Kumar.
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.255 of 2019,
dated 11.08.2019 registered in Police Station Paonta Sahib, District
Sirmour, H.P., is quashed. Consequent to quashing of FIR, criminal
proceedings consequent thereto, 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.
r (Vivek Singh Thakur),
Judge.
September 10, 2021
(Purohit)
