Himachal Pradesh High Court
Sanjeev Kumar Aged 44 Years vs Unknown on 20 May, 2022
Bench: Vivek Singh Thakur
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
ON THE 20th DAY OF MAY, 2022
BEFORE
.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIVEK SINGH THAKUR
CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION (MAIN) U/S 482 CRPC No. 132 OF 2022
BETWEEN:-
1. SANJEEV KUMAR AGED 44 YEARS,
S/O SH. MANOHAR LAL, RESIDENT
OF VILLAGE LAHASAN POST
OFFICE KOHALA TEHSIL
JAWALAMUKHI, DISTRICT
KANGRA, HIMACHAL PRADESH.
2. VISHAL KUMAR S/O SH. KASHMIR
SINGH, AGED 25 YEARS, RESIDENT
OF PARTAP NAGAR WARD NO. 3
HOUSE 72, TEHSIL & DISTT.
HAMIRPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH. ....PETITIONERS
(BY SH. KULWANT SINGH GILL, ADVOCATE.)
AND
1. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
THROUGH SECRETARY HOME.
2. SHUBHAM THAKUR AGED 25
YEARS, S/O MADAN LAL RESIDENT
OF VILLAGE DHANOT, POST
OFFICE/TEHSIL JAWALAMUKHI
DISTRICT KANGRA HIMACHAL ....RESPONDENTS
PRADESH.
(BY SH. HEMANT VAID,
ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL
FOR RESPONDENT NO. 1.)
(BY SH.PANKAJ MEHTA, ADVOCATE,
FOR RESPODNENT NO. 2.)
Whether approved for Reporting?
This petition coming on for admission this day, the Court
delivered 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
petitioners Sanjeev Kumar and Vishal Kumar, on the basis of
compromise arrived at between them and respondents No. 2 Shubham
Thakur for quashing of FIR No. No. 251 of 2021, dated 24.12.2021,
registered in Police Station Sadar Hamirpur, District Himarpur,
.
Himachal Pradesh, under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal
Code (in short 'IPC') and consequent proceedings arising thereto.
2. Petitioners Sanjeev Kumar, Vishal Kumar and respondent
No. 2/complainant Shubham Thakur were present in the Court on
4.5.2022 and they were duly identified by their respective counsel. Their
statements, on oath, had been recorded separately.
3. In his statement, complainant-respondent No.2 Shubham
Thakur has stated that he is eyewitness of the accident and at the time
of accident, he was of the opinion that accident had taken place on
account of rash and negligent driving of the Jeep Driver i.e. Vishal
Kumar, but lateron on re-visiting the spot on the request of Vishal Kumar
and his explanation, he stood corrected and now it is clear to him that
accident had taken place due to fog and it cannot be said that it had
happened on account of rash and negligent driving of Vishal Kumar.
4. In his statement, petitioner Sanjeev Kumar has endorsed the
statement made by respondent No. 2-complainant to be true and correct
and has deposed that he has entered into compromise and has no
objection for quashing of FIR in present case and he has undertaken to
be more careful in future.
5. In his statement, petitioner Vishal Kumar has endorsed the
statement made by petitioner No. 1-Sanjeev Kumar to be true and
correct and has undertaken to be more careful in future.
6. Petitioners No. 1 and 2 and respondent No. 2 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.
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
Section 320 Cr.P.C.
r to
between the parties with respect to an offence not compoundable under
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
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.
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. 251 of 2021, dated
24.12.2021, registered in Police Station Sadar Hamirpur, District
Hamirpur, 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 alo pending
applications, if any.
14. 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),
th
20 May, 2022 Judge.
(Keshav)
r to
