Himachal Pradesh High Court
Date Of Decision: 30.08.2024 vs State Of H.P. & Others on 30 August, 2024
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
2024:HHC:7693
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr.MMO No.348 of 2024
Date of Decision: 30.08.2024
.
_______________________________________________________
Ankush Saini .......Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. & others ... Respondents
_______________________________________________________
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? 1
For the Petitioner:
H.S.Rana, Advocate.
r to
Ms. Kamlesh Kumari, Advocate, vice Mr.
For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr.
B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals,
with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate
General, for respondent Nos.1 and 2/State.
Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate, for respondent
No.3 and 4.
_______________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral):
By way of instant petition filed under Section 482 read
with Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, prayer has been
made on behalf of the petitioner for quashing of FIR No. 48 of 2019,
dated 06.03.2019, under Sections 279 and 337 IPC, registered at
police Station, Haroli, District Una, Himachal Pradesh as well as
consequent proceedings 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?
2024:HHC:7693
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.3, Janak Raj
(hereinafter referred to as the complainant), who alleged that on
06.03.2024, at about 9.30 AM, while he was standing in front of
furniture shop of Onkar Chand, a Motorcycle bearing registration
No.HP-72A-0349 being driven by the petitioner came in high speed
from Pandoga side and hit motorcycle bearing registration No.
HP-72A-7250, which at the relevant time was standing on the side of
the road. He alleged that person, namely Ashish Kumar, who at the
time of the accident, was sitting on motorcycle No. HP-72A-7250 fell
on the ground and suffered injuries. Since complainant alleged that
the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the
accused i.e. petitioner herein, FIR, sought to be quashed in the
instant proceedings, came to be instituted against him. Though, after
completion of the investigation, police has already presented the
challan in the competent Court of law, but before same could be taken
to its logical end, parties have entered into compromise, whereby they
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 the FIR as well as consequent
proceedings pending in the competent Court of law.
2024:HHC:7693
3. Pursuant to the direction issued by this Court,
respondent-State has filed reply under the signatures of
.
Superintendent of Police, Una, District Una, Himachal Pradesh, which
is silent about the compromise. However, on 21.08.2024, respondent
No.4, Ashish Kumar, who suffered injuries in the accident, came
present before this Court and stated on oath that he of his own
volition and without there being any external pressure has entered
into the compromise, whereby both the parties have resolved to settle
their dispute amicably interse them. He stated that FIR, sought to be
quashed, is a result of misunderstanding because accident did not
occur on account of rash and negligent driving of the petitioner, rather
on account of error of judgment. He further stated before this Court
that he shall have no objection in case FIR as well as consequent
proceedings, sought to be quashed, are quashed and petitioner is
acquitted of the charges framed against him. Since on that date
respondent No.3/ complainant, at whose instance FIR, sought to be
quashed, failed to come present, case at hand was adjourned for
today's date.
4. Today, respondent No.3/complainant has come present
in Court and is being represented by Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate. He
states on oath before this Court that he of his own volition and without
there being any external pressure has entered into the compromise
with the petitioner, whereby both the parties have resolved to settle
2024:HHC:7693
their dispute amicably interse them. He states that since petitioner as
well as respondent No.4, Ashish Kumar, who suffered injuries in the
.
accident, have already settled their matter and respondent No.4/
injured has no objection in quashing the FIR as well as consequent
proceedings, he being informant otherwise cannot have any objection.
He further states that since respondent No.4/injured has already
recovered from the injuries suffered by him in the accident, coupled
with the fact that respondent No.4/ injured is no more interested to
prosecute the case further, he shall have no objection in case prayer
made in the petition is allowed and petitioner is acquitted of the
charges framed against him. While admitting the contents of the
compromise placed on record to be correct, he also admits his
signatures upon the same. His statement is taken on record.
5. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General,
after having heard the aforesaid statements made by respondent Nos.
3 and 4 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 statements made by complainant/respondent No.3 and
respondent No.4/ injured as such, respondent-State shall have no
objection in case the prayer made in the petition is allowed.
2024:HHC:7693
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., since 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
2024:HHC:7693
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. 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.
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 to compound
the offences under Section 320 Cr.P.C. Even in the judgment
passed in Narinder Singh's case, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held
2024:HHC:7693
that while exercising inherent power of quashment under Section 482
Cr.P.C 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. In the case at hand also, offences alleged to have been
committed by the petitioner do not involve offences of moral turpitude
or any grave/heinous crime, rather same are petty offences, as such,
2024:HHC:7693
this Court deems it appropriate to quash the FIR as well as
consequential proceedings thereto, especially keeping in view the fact
.
that the petitioner and respondent Nos.3 and 4 have compromised the
matter interse them, in which case, possibility of conviction is remote
and no fruitful purpose would be served in continuing with the criminal
proceedings.
12. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion as well
as law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court (supra), FIR No. 48 of
2019, dated 06.03.2019, under Sections 279 and 337 IPC, registered at
police Station, Haroli, District Una, Himachal Pradesh as well as
consequent proceedings pending adjudication in the competent Court
of law, are 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.
14.
(Sandeep Sharma),
Judge
August 30, 2024
(shankar)
