Himachal Pradesh High Court
Date Of Decision: 13.07.2023 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & ... on 13 July, 2023
Bench: Sushil Kukreja
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
.
Cr.MMO No.457 of 2023
Date of Decision: 13.07.2023
_________________________________________________
Sachin
....Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & another
...Respondents
_________________________________________________
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
________________________________________________
For the petitioner: Mr. Ashwani Kaundal, Advocate.
For respondent No 1: Mr. Raj Kumar Negi, Additional
Advocate General.
For respondent No. 2: Mr. Naresh Kumar Sharma,
Advocate.
________________________________________________
Sushil Kukreja, Judge (Oral)
The accused (petitioner herein), after
compromising the matter with complainant/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. 0014 of 2023, dated 04.02.2023, under Sections
279, 337 of Indian Penal Code and Section 187 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, registered at Police Station Mehatpur, District
Una, H.P..
1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. The present FIR was lodged by Complainant-
.
respondent No. 2, Smt. Meena Devi, who was present before
this Court on 01.06.2023 and she was duly identified by
Mr. Naresh Kumar Sharma, Advocate.
3. On 01.06.2023, complainant/respondent No.2 as
well as the petitioner-accused were present in person before
this Court and their statements were separately recorded and
placed on the file.
4. In her statement, complainant/respondent No.2
stated that on 03.02.2023, at Mehatpur, District Una, H.P.,
she was crossing the road and was hit by a scooty, which
was ridden by the petitioner. The matter was reported to the
police in the heat of the moment and later she realized that
the petitioner was not at fault. She further stated that the
petitioner approached her later and helped her in medical
treatment and had shown due remorse and also repented for
his mistake. She also stated that she has entered into
compromise, Annexure P-2, with the petitioner on 01.05.2023
and in view of the compromise, she has no objection in case
FIR No. 0014 of 2023, dated 04.02.2023, alongwith all
criminal proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.
5. The petitioner/accused stated that though he was
.
not at fault in causing the accident, which caused injuries to
respondent No. 2, yet he apologized to respondent No. 2
(complainant) and tried to help her in her medical treatment
to the best of his capacity. He has further stated that the
matter has been amicably settled, vide Compromise Deed,
Annexure P-2, and he undertakes to abide by the terms of
the compromise.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner,
learned Additional Advocate General for respondent No.1
State as well as the learned counsel for respondent No.2 and
also gone through the material available on record.
7. 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.
8. 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. r
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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. 0014 of2023, dated 04.02.2023, under
Sections 279, 337 IPC and Section 187 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, registered against the petitioner/accused at
Police Station Mehatpur, District Una, H.P., alongwith the
.
criminal proceedings, if any, arising out of the said FIR, are
ordered to be quashed and set-aside.
13. Petition stands disposed of in above terms, so
also the pending application(s), if any.
th
13 July, 2023
(virender)
r to ( Sushil Kukreja )
Judge
