Shinghadhar vs Unknown
2021 Latest Caselaw 4627 HP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
                ON THE 21ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021
                                BEFORE




                                                            .

            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIVEK SINGH THAKUR
      CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION (MAIN) U/S 482 CRPC No. 147 OF 2021

BETWEEN:-





     SHRI RAVI KUMAR, S/O SH. LOBHI
     RAM, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
     VILLAGE DADRI, POST OFFICE





     SHINGHADHAR, TEHSIL SALONI,
     DISTRICT CHAMBA, HIMACHAL
     PRADESH.                                                   ....PETITIONER

     (BY SH. SUBHASH CHANDER, ADVOCATE.)


     AND

1.   STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH.
2.   SH. MAONJ KUMAR @ MONNU S/O


     SH. AMAR SINGH, AGED ABOUT 24
     YEARS, P.R.O. VILLAGE TALOTA,
     POST OFFICE KALEHAL, TEHSIL




     CHURAH, DISTRICT CHAMBA,
     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?

             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-3) arrived at

between petitioner Ravi Kumar and respondent No. 2 Manoj Kumar, for

quashing of FIR No. No. 33 of 2018, dated 21.3.2018, registered in

Police Station Tissa, Chamba, Himachal Pradesh, under Sections 279

and 337 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') and Section 185 of

Motor Vehicle Act and consequent proceedings arising thereto.

.

2. Respondent No. 2/Complainant Manoj Kumar and petitioner

Ravi Kumar are present in the Court today (21.9.2021) and their

statements, on oath, have been recorded separately.

3. In his statement, complainant-respondent No.2 Manoj Kumar

Kumar has stated that petitioner Ravi Kumar is driver of Tipper and he

was helper along with him and on the date of incident he was travelling

with petitioner in the Tipper and when they reached near Panjola,

because of bad condition of road, Tipper had gone out of road and fallen

in the fields and both of them had received minor injuries i.e. abrasions,

and that the Police had come on the spot and had taken them to the

Hospital and, thereafter, had taken his signatures on his statement. He

has further deposed that he is suffering from a disease and is not able to

speak clearly and, therefore, the Police had misunderstood him and had

recorded the statement which was not made by him and he has further

stated that the incident had not taken place on account of rash and

negligent driving of Ravi Kumar, but for the bad condition of the road

and, therefore, he has compromised the matter and do not want to

continue with the criminal proceedings against the petitioner. 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 Ravi Kumar has endorsed the

statement of complainant Maonj Kumar alias Monnu to be true and

correct. He has further deposed that on the date of incident he was

driving the tipper and when the same reached near Pajola, because of

bad condition of road, tipper had gone out of the road and fallen in fields.

.

He has also undertaken to be careful in future. 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

petitioner No. 1-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.

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

7. to does not extend to crimes against society.

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 No33 of 2018, dated

21.3.2018, registered in Police Station Tissa, Chamba, Himachal

Pradesh is quashed. Consequent to quashing of FIR, criminal

proceedings pending initiated against petitioner-accused 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),
    st
21 September, 2021                                  Judge.
         (Keshav)




                       r          to