Sahil Bansal Aged 23 Years vs State Of
2022 Latest Caselaw 6031 HP

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
                ON THE 26th DAY OF JULY, 2022
                           BEFORE
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIVEK SINGH THAKUR




                                                                   .
      CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION (MAIN) U/S 482 CRPC No. 569 OF





                              2022
     BETWEEN:­
 1. SAHIL BANSAL AGED 23 YEARS, SON OF





 SH. YOG RAJ BANSAL VPO NEHRA,
 SHIMLA,HP.                                       PETITIONER

 (BY MS. SHEETAL VYAS, ADVOCATE)





 AND

 1.STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, THROUGH
 SECRETARY (HOME), GOVERNMENT OF

 HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA, H.P.

 (SH. HEMANT VAID, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE
 GENERAL FOR R­1)



 2. HAPPY SHARMA, AGED 35 YEARS, SON OF
 SH. PARKASH CHAND, VPO GHANAHATTI,
 SHIMLA                                                              RESPONDENTS




    (SH. MANDEEP CHANDEL, FOR R­2)





whether approved for Reporting?





               This petition coming on for admission this day, the Court
passed the following:
                                  ORDER

The instant petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.PC'), has been filed by the petitioner,

on the basis of compromise arrived at between him and respondent No. 2, for

quashing of FIR No. 0173 of 2019, dated 3.08.2019, registered in Police

Station West, District Shimla, H.P. under Sections 279,337,338 of the Indian

Penal Code (in short 'IPC') and Section 187 of Motor vehicle Act, consequent

proceedings arising thereto.

.

2. Petitioner Sahil Bansal and Happy Sharma (respondent No.2)

are present in person. They are duly identified by their respective counsel.

Their statements, on oath, have been recorded separately.

3. Happy Sharma (respondent No.2) is complainant in present

case. He has stated that his son was injured in the accident with Motor Cycle

being driven by Sahil Bansal (petitioner), and at that time he was not on the

spot and was in the shop being run by his wife. He has further stated that at

about 7.15 p.m., he heard a loud sound and found that his son Chinmay was

lying on the road. Thereafter, he rushed to the spot alongwith his wife and

took the child to the hospital. He has further stated that at that time, his son

was playing with Tanmay, son of his brother Ravi Dutt, on the other side of

the road near work shop of his brother. He has also stated that he found the

petitioner on the spot, who left the spot, after some time. He though that

accident had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of the

petitioner and therefore, in IGMC Shimla, he made statement to the Police

accordingly. However, when we returned home, persons present on the spot

at the time of accident, who had witnessed the accident, had disclosed that

his son suddenly came on the road while playing with his cousin which

resulted into the accident, therefore, he came to know that accident did not

take place due to rash and negligent driving of the petitioner and, therefore,

he has compromised the matter. Endorsing his signature on compromise, he

has communicated no objection for quashing of FIR.

.

Sahil Bansal (petitioner ) in his statement has stated that on

the fateful day, he was going towards Tutu and a child suddenly came on the

road and collided with the side of his bike. He has further stated that he

stayed on the spot and when boy was taken to the hospital by his parents, he

left the spot. He has endorsing the statement made by father of the child to

be true and correct. He has undertaken to be more careful in future and not

to repeat such incident in future with prayer for quashing of FIR.

Petitioner as well as respondent respondent No.2 has stated

that they deposed in the Court out of their free will and consent and without

any threat or coercion of any kind.

4. It is contended on behalf of respondent No.1­State that

petitioner 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.

5. 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 favour 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.

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. No doubt, Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code 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 Cr.PC 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.

9. 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.

10. Now, the matter has been amicably settled between the private

.

parties, as such, I am of the considered view that no fruitful purpose shall be

served to continue the proceedings against accused­ respondent.

11. 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. 0173 of 2019, dated

3.8.2019, registered in Police Station, Shimla, West H.P. is quashed.

Consequent to quashing of FIR, criminal proceedings pending/ initiated

against petitioners­accused in pursuance thereto, are also quashed.

12. Petition stands disposed of in above terms, so also pending

application(s), if any.

13. The parties are permitted to use/produce copy of this judgment,

downloaded from the web­page 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 passing of order

from Website of the High Court.

                                                  (Vivek Singh Thakur),
    th
26 July, 2022                                           Judge.
  (veena)