Date Of Decision: 03.08.2023 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 10862 HP

                                                1

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA




                                                                                       .
                                   Cr.MMO No. 633 of 2023





                               Date of Decision: 03.08.2023
    _________________________________________________
     Arsh Sharma





                                               ....Petitioner
                        Versus
    State of Himachal Pradesh & others
                                               ...Respondents




    _________________________________________________
    Coram
    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge.
    Whether approved for reporting?1

    ________________________________________________

    For the petitioners:                            Mr. Maan Singh, Advocate.
    For respondent No. 1/State:                     Mr. B.N. Sharma, Additional
                                                    Advocate General.


    For respondents No. 2 & 3: Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate.
    ________________________________________________
    Sushil Kukreja, Judge (Oral)

The accused person (petitioner herein), after

compromising the matter with complainant/respondent No.3,

through his father, i.e., respondent No. 2, has come up

before this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., by invoking

inherent powers of this Court, seeking quashing of FIR No.

427, dated 15.11.2022, under Sections 279 and 337 of Indian

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

Penal Code and Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act,

.

registered at Police Station Sadar, District Kullu, H.P..

2. The present FIR was lodged by respondent No.

3, Amritansh Parth Sharma, minor son of Shri Ajay Sharma

(respondent No. 2). Today, respondent No.2 as well as the

petitioner-accused are present in person before this Court

and the statement of respondent No. 2 has been separately

recorded and placed on the file.

4. In his statement, respondent No. 2 stated that he

is making statement on his behalf as well as on behalf of his

minor son Amritansh Sharma (injured/respondent No. 3). He

stated that on the basis of the complaint of his son FIR No.

427 of 2022, dated 15.11.2022, under Sections 279 and 337

IPC and Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, was

registered against the petitioner at Police Station Sadar

Kullu, District Kullu, H.P.. He has further stated that now with

the intervention of he respectable persons of the society and

in order to maintain cordial relations in future, he has entered

into compromise with the petitioner, vide Compromise Deed,

Annexure P-2. He has also stated that in view of the

compromise, he has no objection in case the aforesaid FIR

.

and the consequent proceedings arising out of the said FIR,

pending before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate

Kullu, District Kullu, H.P., are quashed and set-aside.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner,

learned Additional Advocate General for respondent

No.1/State as well as the learned counsel for respondents

No.2 and 3 and also gone through the material available on

record.

6. In Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others,

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, the Hon'ble Apex Court 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 offences like murder, rape and

dacoity etc. should not be quashed despite victim or victim's

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 predominately 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.

7. Further, 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.PC. has recognized

that these powers are not inhibited by provisions of Section

320 Cr.PC.

8. 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, the Hon'ble Supreme Court 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.

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 the nature of the case, to save

the time of the Court for utilizing to decide more effective and

.

meaningful litigation, a common sense approach, based on

ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of law,

should be applied.

10. In the instant case, since the matter has been

amicably settled between the parties, therefore, keeping in

view the nature of the offence, I am of the considered view

that no fruitful purpose will be served to continue the

proceedings against petitioner/accused, as continuation of

the proceedings will be an exercise in futility. The justice in

the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put

to an end and peace is restored in order to maintain

harmonious relations/atmosphere between them.

11. Hence, considering the facts and the

circumstances of the case in entirety, I am of the opinion that

the present petition deserves to be allowed for securing the

ends of justice and, therefore, the same is allowed.

Accordingly, FIR No. 427 of 2022, dated 15.11.2022, under

Sections 279 and 337 IPC and Section 187 of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988, registered against the petitioner-

accused, at Police Station Sadar Kullu, District Kullu, H.P.,

.

and the consequent proceedings arising out of the said FIR,

pending before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate

Kullu, District Kullu, H.P., are ordered to be quashed and set-

aside.

12. Petition stands disposed of in above terms, so

also the pending application(s), if any.

                                                 ( Sushil Kukreja )
     rd
    3 August, 2023                                    Judge
          (virender)