Himachal Pradesh High Court
(Adhar No. 5642-1303-6878) vs Unknown on 14 October, 2022
Bench: Vivek Singh Thakur
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
ON THE 14th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022
.
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIVEK SINGH THAKUR
CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION (MAIN) U/S 482 CRPC No. 648 OF 2022
Between:-
DILBAG SINGH AGED ABOUT 42
YEARS, S/O SH. BALWINDER SINGH
R/O VILLAGE UDHANWAL TEHSIL
BATALA, CHOURE DISTRICT
GURDASPUR, PUNJAB 143505
(ADHAR NO. 5642-1303-6878). ....PETITIONER
(BY SH. MUKUL SOOD, ADVOCATE.)
AND
1. STATE OF H.P. THROUGH
SECRETARY (HOME) TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF HIMACHAL
PRADESH.
2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
UNA DISTRICT UNA, H.P.
3. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, POLICE
STATION AMB, TEHSIL AMB
DISTRICT UNA, H.P.
4. MANOHAR LAL AGED ABOUT 40
YEARS, S/O SH. MUKHTYAR SINGH
R/O VILLAGE RAM NAGAR
(NAKROH) TEHSIL GHANARI
DISTRICT UNA H.P.
5. ABHISHEK AGED 25 YEARS, S/O
SH. GOPAL SINGH, R/O VILLAGE
RAM NAGAR (NAKROH) TEHSIL
GHANARI DISTRICT UNA H.P.
6. LUCKY AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS
(MINOR) S/O SH.SANJEEV SINGH
R/O VILLAGE RAIPUR (MARWARI),
TEHSIL GHANARI DISTRICT UNA
H.P. THROUGH HIS FATHER
SH.SANJEEV SINGH R/O VILLAGE
RAIPUR (MARWARI), TEHSIL
GHANARI DISTRICT UNA, H.P. ....RESPONDENTS
(BY SH. HEMANT VAID, ADDITIONAL
ADVOCATE GENERAL ADVOCATE GENERAL,
::: Downloaded on - 18/10/2022 20:01:00 :::CIS
2 Cr.MMO No. 648 of 2022
FOR RESPONDENT NO. 1 to 3.)
(BY SH.DEVENDER K. SHARMA, ADVOCATE,
FOR RESPONDENTS NO. 4 TO 6.)
Whether approved for Reporting?
.
This petition coming on for orders 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
petitioner Dilbag Singh, on the basis of compromise arrived at between
him and respondents No. 4 to 6 for quashing of FIR No. 43 of 2022,
dated 10.3.2022, registered in Police Station Amb, District Una,
Himachal Pradesh, under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal
Code (in short 'IPC') and consequent proceedings arising thereto.
2. Petitioner Dilbag Singh and respondents No. 4, 5 and father
of respondent No. 6 Lucky are present in the Court and they have been
duly identified by their respective counsel. Their statements, on oath,
have been recorded separately.
3. In his statement, complainant-respondent No.4 Manohar Lal
has stated that he is running a Dhaba near the spot of accident and at
the time of accident, he was cooking meals and on hearing a noise of
collision, he rushed to the spot and found Motor Cycle and Car in
damaged condition on the spot. He has stated that he is not aware
about the cause of accident and, therefore, he cannot say that for whose
fault accident took place and he has been communicated no objection
for compromise between the affected parties and for quashing FIR.
4. In his statement, petitioner Dilbag Singh, endorsing the
statement of complaint-Manohar Lal to be true and correct, has stated
that the accident had occurred due to error of judgment. He has also
undertaken to be more careful in future while driving the vehicle to avoid
repetition of such incident in future.
.
5. In his statement, respondent No. 5 Abhishek has stated that
the accident took place at about 10:00 P.M. and that he does not know
real cause of accident. He has stated that accident may have taken
place due to error of judgment of Car driver, as explained by him and,
objection for quashing the FIR.
r to
therefore, he has compromised the matter and communicated his no
6. In his statement Sanjeev Singh, father of respondent No. 6
Lucky (minor) has stated that he does not know real cause of accident
and accident may have taken place due to wrong judgment of Car
driver, as explained by him and, therefore, he has compromised the
matter and communicated his no objection for quashing the FIR.
7. Petitioner Dilbag Singh, respondents No. 4 and 5 Manohar
Lal, Abhishek and father of respondent No. 6 Lucky have stated that
they have compromised the matter and deposed in the Court out of their
free will, consent and also without any kind of threat, coercion or
pressure etc.
8. It is contended on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3-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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. 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. 43 of 2022, dated
10.3.2022, registered in Police Station Amb, Tehsil Amb, District Una,
H.P. is quashed. Consequent to quashing of FIR, criminal proceedings
pending/initiated against petitioner-accused in pursuance thereto, are
also quashed.
16. Petition stands disposed of in above terms, so also pending
applications, if any.
17. 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 passing of
the order from Website of the High Court.
(Vivek Singh Thakur),
th
15 October, 2022 Judge.
(Keshav)
