Between vs Unknown
2022 Latest Caselaw 6490 HP

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

                   ON THE 29th DAY OF JULY, 2022




                                                            .

                                  BEFORE

            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIVEK SINGH THAKUR





    CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION (MAIN) u/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 624 of 2022
    BETWEEN:-
    BAWA PARDEEP SINGH THAKUR
    S/O LATE SH. THAKUR HARBHAJAN SINGH,





    AGED 47 YEARS,
    R/O VILLAGE GHANOO, POST OFFICE
    GAGGAL KHOLI, TEHSIL DHEERA,
    DISTRICT KANGRA, H.P.                              ....PETITIONER

    (BY MR. DIWAN SINGH NEGI, ADVOCATE)

    (PETITIONER PRESENT IN PERSON)

    AND


    1. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

     (BY SH. RAJU RAM RAHI, DEPUTY
     ADVOCATE GENERAL)




    2. SMT. JYOTI KUMARI





       W/O SH. KULDEEP SINGH,
       R/O VILLAGE & POST OFFICE
       PARAGPUR, TEHSIL DEHRA,





       DISTRICT KANGRA, H.P.                         ....RESPONDENTS


     (BY SH. DEVINDER KUMAR SHARMA, ADVOCATE, FOR R-2)

     (RESPONDENT NO. 2 PRESENT IN PERSON)


             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 petitioner - Bawa Pardeep Singh Thakur, on the basis of

compromise arrived at between him and respondent No. 2 - Jyoti

Kumari, for quashing of FIR No. 64 of 2022, dated 13.6.2022,

registered in Police Station Kangra, District Kangra, H.P., under

Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC')

and all consequent proceedings arising thereto, if any.

2. Petitioner - Bawa Pardeep Singh Thakur, and

complainant - respondent No.2 - Jyoti Kumari are present in

person in the Court, who have been identified by their respective

learned counsel. Their statements, on oath, have also been

recorded in the Court.

3. In her statement, complainant-respondent No.2 - Jyoti

Kumari has stated that on 13.6.2022 she was going to attend

her duty in Dr. Rajender Prashad Medical College and Hospital at

Tanda. Suddenly she was pushed by a vehicle or perhaps its

side mirror as she could not notice it because it was raining and

she was walking with umbrella and car came from the back side

and that she did not know the cause of accident. She has further

stated that she was taken to the hospital by the petitioner in his

car for medical treatment and that she gained consciousness in

the hospital and her statement was recorded there on the basis

of which instant FIR has been registered. She has stated that at

that time she was in a family way and was apprehending

.

damage to the child but everything happened normally and child

born is healthy. She has further stated that later on, she came to

know that the accident took place because of error of judgment

as petitioner tried to save himself from a tempo-traveller coming

in high speed from the opposite side. She has further stated that

in her opinion the accident did not take place due to rash and

negligent driving of the petitioner and further that after

considering his explanation for the cause of accident, she has

entered into compromise with the petitioner-accused and has

prayed for permission to withdraw the complaint/FIR and all

consequential proceedings arising out of if, if any.

4. In his statement, petitioner - Bawa Pardeep Singh

Thakur, has endorsed the statement of the complainant-

respondent No.2 to be true and correct and has undertaken to be

more careful in future.

5. Petitioner - Bawa Pardeep Singh Thakur and

respondent No.2- complainant - Jyoti Kumari, have also 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 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 - Bawa Pardeep Singh Thakur.

.

13. Offences in question, for material on record, do not fall

in the category of offences 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.

64 of 2022, dated 13.6.2022 registered in Police Station Kangra,

District Kangra, H.P., is quashed. Consequent to quashing of FIR,

criminal proceedings arising thereto, if any, are also quashed.

15. Petition stands disposed of in above terms.

Parties are permitted to produce a copy of this order,

downloaded from the web-page of the High Court of Himachal

Pradesh, before the trial Court/authorities concerned, and the

said Court/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), Judge.

July 29 , 2022 (PK)