Himachal Pradesh High Court

Abhishek Guleria vs State Of H.P. & Anr on 15 May, 2023

Bench: Jyotsna Rewal Dua

                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,
                                     SHIMLA

                                                 Cr.MMO No.265/2023




                                                                           .
                                                 Decided on: 15.05.2023





    Abhishek Guleria                                            ....Petitioner

                                            Versus





    State of H.P. & Anr.                 ...... Respondents
    ............................................................................................
    Coram
    Hon'ble Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge.
    Whether approved for reporting?1

    For the petitioner :

     For the respondents :
                          r               to  Ms. Sheetal Vyas, Advocate.

                                              Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional
                                              Advocate General, for respondent

                                              No.1.

                                              Mr. Jaiprabha, Advocate,                    for
                                              respondent No.2.



                                              HC Painan Kamal No.31, present in
                                              person.




    Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.

The instant petition has been moved under Section 482

of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing FIR No.17/19 dated

04.04.2019, under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal

Code at Police Station Damtal, District Kangra H.P. alongwith

consequent criminal proceedings arising out of it.

2. The FIR was registered on the basis of statement made

by respondent No.2 (Karan Kumar) under Section 154 of the Code of

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

Criminal Procedure. Respondent No.2 complained that due to rash

driving of the petitioner, an accident had occurred as a result of which

Scooty driven by the petitioner dashed against the father of the

complainant. The complainant's father received minor injuries,

whereas the petitioner also fell down and sustained injuries on his

head.

3. A compromise deed has been appended at Annexure P-

2 of the petition. In terms of this compromise dated 12.09.2022,

respondent No.2 has settled all his disputes, which are subject matter

of the FIR with the petitioner. The compromise also records that

respondent No.2 is not interested in pursuing the FIR and consequent

judicial proceedings. That he has no objection for quashing of the FIR

as well as the judicial proceedings arising out of it. Respondent No.2

had attended the hearing of the case on 31.03.2023, when his

statement was recorded on oath. In his statement, respondent No.2

reiterated that he did not want to continue with the prosecution of the

case. In the said statement, respondent No.2, however, also stated

that he had not entered into any compromise with the petitioner,

whereafter, respondent No.1-State was directed to file status report

for ascertaining the statement of respondent No.2.

4. Learned Additional Advocate General has placed on

record a fresh status report. Alongwith status report, statement of

respondent No.2 has also been appended. In this statement,

respondent No.2 has reiterated that he is not interested in pursuing

the FIR and the consequent judicial proceedings. He has expressed

no objection for quashing of the FIR. Learned Additional Advocate

General on the basis of instructions imparted to him by HC Painan

Kamal No.31 submitted that the said statement was recorded by

respondent No.1 on 12.05.2023. Status report also mentions that the

petitioner is presently residing with his family in Mumbai. Learned

Additional Advocate General also submitted that he has no objection

in case the relief prayed for in the petition is granted in view of the

aforesaid compromise and in view of amicable settlement of the

disputes between the parties.

5. The law laid down in respect of exercise of powers

under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing or

for refusing to quash the FIR and resultant proceedings on the basis

of compromise effected by the parties in (2012) 10 SCC 303 titled

Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab; (2014) 6 SCC 466 titled Narinder

Singh vs. State of Punjab; (2017) 9 SCC 641 titled as Parbatbhai

Aahir vs. State of Gujarat, has been noticed again by Hon'ble Apex

Court in (2019) 5 SCC 688 , titled as State of Madhya Pradesh vs.

Laxmi Narayan with following observations:-

" 15 . Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of this Court on the point, referred to hereinabove, it is observed and held as under:

15.1 That the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings

for the non-compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of

.

commercial transactions or arising out of

matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves;

15.2. Such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved 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;

15.3 Similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes like

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;

15.4 Offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act etc. would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be treated as crime against the society and

not against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal proceedings for the offence under

Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act etc. which have a serious impact on the society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under Section

482 of the Code, on the ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst themselves. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to framing the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury

sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc. However, such an exercise by the High Court would be permissible only

.

after the evidence is collected after investigation

and the charge sheet is filed/charge is framed and/or during the trial. Such exercise is not permissible when the matter is still under investigation. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion

in paragraphs 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in the case of Narinder Singh (supra) should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated

hereinabove;

15.5 While exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non-compoundable

offences, which are private in nature and do not

have a serious impart on society, on the ground that there is a settlement/compromise between the victim and the offender, the High Court is required to consider the antecedents of the

accused; the conduct of the accused, namely, whether the accused was absconding and why he was absconding, how he had managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise

etc."

6. Applying the above guidelines to the instant case, the

statement made by respondent No.2 recorded on oath in this Court,

the status report filed by respondent No.1 and in view of the amicable

settlement arrived at between the parties, no fruitful purpose will be

served in continuing the proceedings in question. The present case

because of its peculiar facts noticed above does not fall within the

exceptions carved out by the Hon'ble Apex Court where amicable

settlement arrived at between the parties cannot be acted upon for

quashing the FIR and the consequent proceedings. The possibility of

conviction in such circumstances would be very remote. The

continuation of the proceedings will be to the great detriment of the

petitioner causing him unnecessary harassment and injustice. When