Sh. Himanshu Siheg vs Unknown
2022 Latest Caselaw 5011 HP

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA




                                                         .
                     ON THE 28th DAY OF JUNE, 2022





                               BEFORE

                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIVEK SINGH THAKUR





    CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION (MAIN) U/S 482 Cr.P.C No. 292 of 2022

    Between:





    1. SH. HIMANSHU SIHEG, SON OF SH.
    HARDAYAL,   R/O  45, SARELI  (295)
    MAHINDER GARH, HARYANA AGED
    ABOUT 24 YEARS.


    2. SH. SAINYAM BHARDWAJ, SON OF SH.
    RAJESH KUMAR RESIDENT OF VILLAGE
    BAG CHOWKI PO KUTHERA TEHSIL AND
    DISTRICT HAMIRPUR, H.P. AGED ABOUT


    23 YEARS.

                           ........PETITIONERS




    ( BY SHRI RAMAKANT SHARMA, ADVOCATE )





                     AND

    1.   STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH.





    2.   SH. SUMIT THAKUR, S/O SH.
    SANTOSH THAKUR, R/O VILLAGE
    DHUNGHI, PO TIKKER KHATRYIAN
    TEHSIL BHORANJ DISTRICT HAMIRPUR,
    H.P.

                           ..........RESPONDENTS

    (BY SHRI HEMANT VAID, ADDITIONAL
    ADVOCATE GENERAL, FOR R-1;

    MS. MEENA SHARMA, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

         This petition coming on for admission after notice this day,
    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, passed the following:-




                                        ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2022 20:01:42 :::CIS
                  ORDER

.

The instant petition, under Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C'), has been filed by

petitioners Himanshu Siheg and Sainyam Bhardwaj, on the basis of

compromise arrived at between them and respondents No. 2, Sumit Thakur

for quashing of FIR No. 26/2022, dated 08.04.2022, registered in Police

Station West (Chotta-Shimla), District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, under

Sections 279, 337 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') and

consequent proceedings arising thereto.

2. Petitioners Himanshu Siheg & Sainyam Bhardwaj and

respondent No. 2/complainant Sumit Thakur were present in the Court on

30.05.2022. Petitioners are present in the Court today also. All of them

have been duly identified by their respective counsel. Their statements, on

oath, have been recorded separately.

3. In his statement, complainant-respondent No.2 Sumit Thakur

has stated that since petitioners have agreed to bear the expenses of the

damage and loss caused to his vehicle, therefore, he has agreed to withdraw

the complaint and he has no objection for quashing of FIR, and

accordingly, has prayed for compounding the case for quashing the

criminal proceedings arising thereto.

4. In their statement, petitioners Himanshu Siheg and Sainyam

Bhardwaj have endorsed the statement made by respondent No.2-

complainant to be true and correct and have undertaken to be very careful

.

in future and not to repeat such incident again.

5. Petitioners Himanshu Siheg and Sainyam Bhardwaj and

respondent No. 2 Sumit Thakur have stated that they have compromised the

matter and disposed in the Court out of their free will, consent and also

without any kind of threat, coercion or pressure etc.

6.

It has been canvassed on behalf of petitioners that they are

students studying in University and now unfortunate incident is haunting

their carrier and therefore, prayer for quashing the FIR has been made in

order to save their future as they have undertaken to be careful in future.

7. 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 an offence not compoundable under Section 320

Cr.P.C.

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. 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 Cr.P.C and FIR as well as

criminal proceedings can be quashed by exercising inherent powers under

Section 482 Cr.P.C, 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.

12. In Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab, (2008) 4 SCC

582, the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasized and advised that in the

5matter 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.

13. 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.

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. 26/2022, dated 08.04.2022,

registered in Police Station West (Chotta-Shimla), District Shimla,

Himachal Pradesh is quashed. Consequent to quashing of FIR, criminal

proceedings pending/initiated against petitioner-accused in pursuance

thereto, are also quashed.

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

applications, if any.

16. Parties are 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 June 28,2022 (NKT)