Gaurav Kaushal vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 5443 HP

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

                                                                      Cr.MMO No.373 of 2023
                                   Date of Decision: 10.05.2023




                                                                                      .
    _______________________________________________________





    Gaurav Kaushal                              .......Petitioner

                                                    Versus





    State of Himachal Pradesh & others         ... Respondents
    _______________________________________________________
    Coram:
    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
    Whether approved for reporting? 1

    For the Petitioner:



                                          Mr. Virender Singh Kanwar, Advocate.

    For the Respondents: Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate General,

                         for respondents No.1 and 2/State.

                        Mr. Vipul Sharda, Advocate, for respondent
                        No.3.
    _______________________________________________________
    Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

By way of instant petition filed under Section 482 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, prayer has been made on behalf of the

petitioner for quashing of FIR No.113 of 2016, dated 13.05.2016,

under Section 279 of IPC and Sections 181,187 and 185 of the

Motor Vehicles Act, registered at police Station, Boileauganj, District

Shimla, H.P., as well as consequent proceedings, if any, pending

adjudication in the competent court of law, on the basis of the

compromise arrived inter se parties (Annexure P-2), whereby both

the parties have resolved to settle their dispute amicably interse them.

Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

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

record are that FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings,

came to be lodged at the behest of respondent No.2, Sh. Ankush

.

Kanwar (hereinafter referred to as the complainant), who alleged

that on13.05.2016, he had parked his car bearing registration No.

HP-63-A-1156(Alto Car) near Ambedkar Chowk, Chaura Maidan,

Shimla. He alleged that at 8.00 PM, while he alongwith his friends

was going to Dhanda from Sanitarium Hospital to bring food to his

father, car bearing registration No.CH-03N-0334 being driven by the

petitioner came in high speed and hit his car, as a result of which,

damage was caused to his vehicle. Complainant alleged that accident

occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the petitioner,

who at that relevant time was under intoxication. Though, after

completion of the investigation, police presented the challan in the

competent court of law, but before same could be taken to its logical

end, parties entered into the compromise, whereby both the parties

have resolved to settle their dispute amicably interse them. In the

aforesaid background, petitioner has approached this Court in the

instant proceedings for quashing of FIR as well as consequent

proceedings, if any, pending in the competent Court of law.

3. Pursuant to order dated 27.04.2023, respondent-State

has filed status report under the signature of SHO, police Station

Boileauganj, District Shimla,H.P., wherein factum with regard to

.

compromise arrived interse parties has been duly acknowledged.

4. Respondent No.3/Complainant Sh. Ankush Kanwar, who

is present in Court and is being represented by Mr. Vipul Sharda,

Advocate states on oath before this Court that he of his own volition

and without there being any external pressures has entered into the

compromise with the petitioner, whereby both the parties have

resolved to settle their dispute amicably interse them. He states that

since petitioner has already apologized for his mistake and has

undertaken not to repeat such act in future, coupled with the fact that

he has been duly compensated qua the damage caused to his

vehicle, he does not wish to prosecute the case further and shall have

no objection in case prayer made in the instant petition for quashing

of FIR as well as consequent proceedings pending in the competent

court of law, is accepted and petitioner-accused is acquitted of the

charges. While admitting the contents of the compromise placed on

record to be correct, he also admits his signature. His statement is

taken on record.

5. Petitioner, who is present in Court, also undertakes

before this Court that in future he will not drive vehicle under

intoxication. Mother of the petitioner, who is present in Court, apprised

this Court that now petitioner has stopped consuming liquor.

6. After having heard the aforesaid statement made by

.

respondent No. 3, learned Additional Advocate General fairly states

that no fruitful purpose would be served in case FIR as well as

consequent proceedings sought to be quashed are allowed to sustain.

He further states that otherwise also, chances of conviction of

petitioner-accused are very remote and bleak in view of the statement

made by respondent No. 3 before this Court and as such, respondent-

State shall have no objection in case the prayer made in the petition is

allowed.

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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. Aforesaid view

taken by Hon'ble Apex Court has been further reiterated in Gian

Singh v. State of Punjab and anr. (2012) 10 SCC 303.

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. In the case at hand, offences alleged to have been

committed by the petitioner are petty offences coupled with the fact

that the petitioner and the complainant have compromised the matter,

as such, no fruitful purpose would be served in continuing with

criminal prosecution of the petitioner. Otherwise also, there are bleak

and remote chances of conviction of accused and as such, this court

sees no impediment in accepting the prayer made by petitioner for

quashing of FIR.

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

as law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court (supra), FIR No. 113 of

2016, dated 13.05.2016,under Section 279 of IPC and Sections

181,187 and 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, registered at police

Station, Boileauganj, District Shimla, H.P., as well as consequent

.

proceedings, if any, pending adjudication in the competent court of

law are quashed and set aside. Petitioner-accused is acquitted of the

charges framed against him.

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

alongwith all pending applications.

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge May 10,2023

(shankar)