Decided On: February 28 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 1541 HP

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
                                              CrMMO No. 1245 of 2022
                                         Decided on: February 28, 2023
    ________________________________________________________
    Simranjeet Singh                                   .........Petitioner




                                                              .
                                     Versus





    State of Himachal Pradesh and others               ...Respondents
    ________________________________________________________
    Coram
    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.





    Whether approved for reporting
    ________________________________________________________
    For the petitioner:      Mr. Kuldeep Singh Chandel, Advocate,
                             Advocate.
    For the respondents:     Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. B.C. Verma,





                             Additional   Advocates    General,    for
                             respondent No.1.
                             Mr. Kamal Jeet Sharma, Advocate, for
                             respondents Nos. 2 to 12
    ________________________________________________________

    Sandeep Sharma, J. (oral)

By way of present petition filed under S. 482 CrPC, prayer has

been on behalf of the petitioner for quashing FIR No. 323, dated

9.11.2019 registered at Police Station Nalagarh, Baddi, Himachal

Pradesh under 279 and 337 IPC alongwith consequential proceedings

pending in the competent court of law.

2. Precisely the case of the petitioner, as emerge from the

pleadings is that the FIR sought to be quashed in the instant

proceedings came to be lodged at the behest of Kewal Singh

respondent No.2 (hereinafter, 'complainant') who alleged that on

9.11.2019, he alongwith other 15-20 family members was going to

attend the marriage of his nephew and niece to village Behli from

Jhajra in tempo bearing registration No. HP-12A-5457 being driven by

him (Kewal Singh) on his side in normal speed but when he reached

near Kalyanpur bridge, another tempo bearing registration No. HP-

12D-8523 driven by the petitioner came in high sped and collided with

tempo, as a result of which occupants of tempo being driven by him

suffered injuries and damage was caused to the vehicle. In the

.

aforesaid background, FIR sought to be quashed in the instant

proceedings came to be lodged against the petitioner under S.279 and

337 IPC. Though after completion of investigation police presented

challan in the competent court of law but before same could be taken

to its logical end, parties have entered into compromise and resolved

to settle the dispute inter se them amicably. In the aforesaid

background, petitioner has approached this court in the instant

proceedings, praying therein for quashing of FIR and consequential

proceedings in the competent court of law

3. Pursuant to notice issued in terms of order dated

27.12.2022, all the respondents except respondents Nos. 7, 10 and 12

have come present and are represented by Mr. Kamal Jeet Sharma,

Advocate.

4. Respondent No. Kewal Singh, states on oath that he, of his

own volition and without any external pressure, has entered into

compromise with the petitioner, whereby they have resolved to settle

the dispute inter se them amicably. He states that FIR sought to be

quashed in the instant proceedings is result of misunderstanding and

accident did not occur due to rash and negligent driving of the

petitioner rather on account of error of judgment as such, he shall

have no objection in case prayer of petitioner for quashing of FIR is

accepted. He states that since he has been adequately compensated

qua damage caused to his vehicle coupled with the fact that all

occupants, who suffered injuries, were duly taken care of, while under

treatment by the petitioner, he shall have no objection in case FIR

.

alongwith consequential proceedings is quashed and set aside and

petitioner is acquitted of the charges framed against him. While

admitting contents of the compromise to be correct, he also admits his

signatures thereupon.

5. Having heard statement made on oath by respondent No.2

Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General states that no

fruitful purpose will be served in case FIR as well consequent

proceedings are allowed to continue against the petitioner. He further

states that otherwise also, chances of conviction are remote and bleak,

on account of statement made by respondent No.2, as such,

respondent shall have no objection in case prayer made on behalf of

the petitioner is accepted and FIR in question alongwith consequential

proceedings is quashed and set aside and petitioner is acquitted. .

6. The question which now needs consideration is whether

FIR's in question can be ordered to be quashed when Hon'ble Apex

Court in Narinder Singh and others versus State of Punjab and

another (2014)6 SCC 466 has specifically held that power under S.

482 CrPC is not to be exercised in the cases which involve heinous

and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape,

dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious

impact on society.

7. At this stage, it would be relevant to take note of the

judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Narinder Singh (supra),

whereby the Hon'ble Apex Court has formulated guidelines for

.

accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to

accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal

proceedings. Perusal of judgment referred to above clearly depicts

that in para 29.1, Hon'ble Apex Court has returned the findings that

power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished

from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under

Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the

High Court has inherent power to quash criminal proceedings even in

those cases which are not compoundable and where the parties have

settled the matter between themselves, however, this power is to be

exercised sparingly and with great caution. In para Nos. 29 to 29.7 of

the judgment Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down certain parameters to

be followed, while compounding offences.

8. Careful perusal of para 29.3 of the judgment suggests that

such a power is not to be exercised in the cases which involve heinous

and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape,

dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious

impact on society. Apart from this, offences committed under special

statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed

by Public Servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed

merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the

offender. On the other hand, those criminal cases having

overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly arising

out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship

or family disputes may be quashed when the parties have resolved

.

their entire disputes among themselves.

9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case Gian Singh supra has held

that power of the High Court in quashing of the criminal proceedings or

FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent power is distinct and

different from the power of a Criminal Court for compounding offences

under Section 320 Cr.PC. Even in the judgment passed in Narinder

Singh's case, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that while exercising

inherent power of quashment under Section 482 Cr.PC the Court must

have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime and its social

impact and it cautioned the Courts not to exercise the power for

quashing proceedings in heinous and serious offences of mental

depravity, murder, rape, dacoity etc. However subsequently, the

Hon'ble Apex Court in Dimpey Gujral and Ors. vs. Union Territory

through Administrator, UT, Chandigarh and Ors. (2013( 11 SCC

497 has further reiterated that continuation of criminal proceedings

would tantamount to abuse of process of law because the alleged

offences are not heinous offences showing extreme depravity nor are

they against the society. Hon'ble Apex Court further observed that

when offences of a personal nature, burying them would bring about

peace and amity between the two sides.

10. Hon'ble Apex Court in its judgment dated 4th October, 2017,

titled as Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and

others versus State of Gujarat and Another, passed in Criminal

Appeal No.1723 of 2017 arising out of SLP(Crl) No.9549 of 2016,

reiterated the principles/ parameters laid down in Narinder Singh's

.

case supra for accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings.

11. The offence alleged to have been committed by the

petitioner in the case at hand is a petty offence and all the injured

have recovered from their injuries. Moreover, the complainant at whose

instance FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings came to

be lodged, is no more interested in pursuing the criminal prosecution of

the petitioner, as such, this court sees no impediment in accepting the

prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for quashing of the FIR

alongwith all consequential proceedings.

12. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion as well

as law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court (supra), FIR No. 323, dated

9.11.2019 registered at Police Station Nalagarh, Baddi, Himachal

Pradesh under 279 and 337 IPC alongwith consequential proceedings

is quashed and set aside. Accused is acquitted of the charges framed

against him.

13. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms,

alongwith all pending applications.

Copy Dasti.

(Sandeep Sharma) Judge February 28, 2023 (Vikrant)