_________________________________________________ vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 15619 HP

                                                1

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

                                                          Cr.MMO No. 976 of 2023
                                                      Date of Decision: 07.10.2023




                                                                                       .

    _________________________________________________
     Madan Singh
                                            ....Petitioner





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




     Coram
     Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge.
     Whether approved for reporting?1
     ________________________________________________
     For the petitioner:
                               r                    Mr. Rahul Singh Verma,

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


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

The accused (petitioner herein), after

compromising the matter with complainant/injured/

respondent No. 2 and injured/respondent No. 3, has come up

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

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

57 of 2019, dated 15.02.2019, under Sections 279, 337 and

338 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and Sections 187

and 177 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short 'the MV Act'),

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

registered at Police Station Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur,

H.P..

.

2. The present FIR was lodged by the

complainant/respondent No. 2, Smt. Akhtari Begum, on the

allegations that she and respondent No. 3-Jai Ram Verma,

got injured in the accident and today statements of

respondents No. 2 and 3 have been separately recorded and

placed on the file.

3. to In her statement, complainant/injured/respondent

No. 2 stated that on the basis of her complaint, FIR No. 57 of

2019, dated 15.02.2019, was registered against the

petitioner, under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC and

Sections 187 and 177 of the MV Act, at Police Station Paonta

Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P.. She has further stated that

now, with the intervention of the respectable persons of the

society and in order to maintain cordial, peaceful and

harmonious relations with each other, the matter has been

compromised between the parties, vide compromise deed,

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

aforesaid compromise, she has no objection in case the

aforesaid FIR, as well as the consequent proceedings,

arising out of the said FIR, pending before the learned

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Paonta

Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P. are quashed and set-aside.

.

4. Similarly, respondent No. 3-Shri Jai Ram Verma,

in his statement stated that on the basis of complaint of

respondent No. 2-Smt. Akhtari Begum, FIR No. 57 of 2019,

dated 15.02.2019, was registered against the petitioner,

under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC and Sections 187 and

Sirmaur, H.P.. to 177 of the MV Act, at Police Station Paonta Sahib, District

He has further stated that now, with the

intervention of the respectable persons of the society and in

order to maintain cordial, peaceful and harmonious relations

with each other, the matter has been compromised between

the parties, vide compromise deed, Annexure P-2. He has

also stated that in view of the aforesaid compromise, she has

no objection in case the aforesaid FIR, as well as the

consequent proceedings, arising out of the said FIR, pending

before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court

No. 1, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, 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

society.

r to clarified that this power does not extend to crimes against

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 similar circumstances a Co-ordinate Bench of

this Court in Cr.MMO No. 563 of 2019 alongwith Cr.

Revision No. 39 of 2012, titled as Anoop Gupta vs.

Vandana & another, decided on 22.10.2019, had quashed

the FIR registered under Sections 279 and 337 IPC and

Sections 181 and 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act on the basis

of compromise.

11. In the instant case, it is not disputed that the

parties have reached a settlement and on that basis have

preferred the present proceedings seeking quashment of the

FIR. Once the injured persons, i.e., respondents No. 2 and

.

3, who are the victims and the worst affected persons on

account of this accident do not want to hold the petitioner

responsible, the quashing of such FIR would definitely be to

secure the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of process of

the Court. The facts of this case otherwise do not in any

manner fall within the exceptions laid down by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court where compromise cannot be entered into or

the proceedings cannot be quashed. Moreover, the Hon'ble

Apex Court in the judgments supra, has observed that power

under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not to be exercised in those

cases which involve heinous and serious offences of mental

depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc.. In the

present case, injured persons are not interested in pursuing

the criminal case against the petitioner and want to maintain

cordial relations with one another to live their lives

peacefully, as such no fruitful purpose would be served in

continuing with the criminal proceedings against the

petitioner/accused.

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. 57 of 2019, dated 15.02.2019, under

Sections 279, 337 and 338 of IPC and Sections 187 and 177

of the MV Act, registered against the petitioner-accused at

Police Station Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P., and the

consequent proceedings arising out of the said FIR, pending

before the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Court No. 1, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P.,

are ordered to be quashed and set-aside.

13. Petition stands disposed of in above terms, so

also the pending application(s), if any.

                                                 ( Sushil Kukreja )





     th
    7 October, 2023                                   Judge
          (virender)