Himachal Pradesh High Court
Date Of Decision: 26.07.2024 vs State Of H.P. & Anr on 26 July, 2024
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
2024:HHC:5908
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr.MMO No.102 of 2024
Date of Decision: 26.07.2024
.
_______________________________________________________
Gian Chand Kashyap
.......Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. & Anr.
.....Respondents
_______________________________________________________
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? 1
For the petitioner: Mr. G.R. Palsra, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar & Mr.
B.C. Verma, Additional Advocate Generals,
with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate
General, for respondent No.1-State.
Mr. Lokesh Thakur, Advocate, for respondent
No. 2.
Ms. Oshin Anand Chauhan, Advocate, vice
Mr. Yudvir Singh, Advocate, for respondent
_______________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral):
Pursuant to order dated 03.05.2024, Ms. Oshin Anand
Chauhan, Advocate, has put in appearance on behalf of proposed
respondent No. 3 Hem Raj. She states that she has no objection in
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
case, prayer made in the application is allowed and above named
Hem Raj is ordered to be impleaded as party respondent No. 3.
.
2. In view of above, present application is allowed and Sh.
Hem Raj is impleaded as respondent No. 3. Application stands
disposed of. Registry to carry out necessary correction in the memo of
parties.
3. Since Ms. Oshin Anand Chauhan, Advocate, has already
filed Power of Attorney on behalf of newly impleaded respondent,
there is no necessity to issue notice.
4. By way of instant petition filed under Section 482 of the
Criminal Procedure Code, prayer has been made on behalf the
petitioner for quashing of FIR No. 277 of 2020, dated 24.07.2020,
under Sections 279 & 337 of Indian Penal Code, registered at Police
Station Sunder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P., as well as consequent
proceedings, if any, pending adjudication in the competent court of
law, on the basis of the compromise arrived at inter se parties,
whereby they have resolved to settle dispute amicably inter se them.
5. 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. Tilak Raj
(hereinafter to be referred to as 'complainant'), who alleged that on
23.07.2020 at 08:30 p.m., while he was going towards Arki driving his
truck bearing registration No. HP-65-3679, one tipper bearing
.
registration No. HP66-A-0613 was moving ahead of his truck. He
alleged that when aforesaid tipper reached near Bhuvana curve, one
Alto car bearing registration No. HP-31-8012 being driven by the
petitioner-accused came at high speed and collided with aforesaid
tipper, as a result thereof, occupants of car suffered injuries and they
were taken to the hospital. Since complainant specifically alleged that
accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the
driver of the car, as detailed hereinabove, case under Sections 279 &
337 of IPC came to be registered against the petitioner-accused.
6. Though, after completion of investigation, Police has
already presented challan in the competent court of law against the
petitioner-accused, but before same could be taken to its logical end,
parties have entered into compromise, whereby they have resolved to
settle the dispute amicably inter se them and as such, petitioner-
accused has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, for
quashing of FIR as well as consequent proceedings, if any, pending
adjudication in the competent court of law.
7. Vide order dated 09.07.2024, this court, while directing
respondent-State to file status report, also directed respondent No. 2
to come present in court. Respondent-State has filed status report,
which fairly acknowledges factum with regard to compromise.
Respondent No. 2 Tilak Raj, who is being represented by Mr. Lokesh
.
Thakur, Advocate, states on oath that he of his own volition and
without any external pressure has entered into compromise with the
petitioner-accused, whereby both the parties have resolved to settle
the dispute amicably inter se them. He states that he only being
present on the spot had lodged a report to the Police, but since
petitioner and the owner of the tipper bearing registration No. HP66-
A-0613 has entered into compromise, whereby they have resolved to
settle the dispute amicably inter se them, he shall have no objection in
case, prayer made for quashing of FIR through instant petition is
accepted and petitioner-accused is acquitted of charges framed
against him. While admitting contents of compromise placed on
record to be correct, he also admits his signatures thereupon. His
statement is taken on record.
8. Ms. Oshin Anand Chauhan, Advocate, appearing for
respondent No. 3 states that as per instructions imparted to her,
respondent No. 3 has no objection in compromising the matter. He
states that since respondent No. 3 has already recovered from the
injuries suffered in the accident, coupled with the fact that both the
parties have adequately compensated each other qua the damage
caused to their vehicles, respondent No. 3, who on account of illness
has not been able to come present, shall have no objection in case,
prayer made for quashing of FIR through instant petition is accepted
.
and petitioner-accused is acquitted of charges framed against him.
9. After having heard aforesaid statement made on oath by
the complainant, Mr. B.C.Verma, learned Additional Advocate
General, fairly states that no fruitful purpose would be served in case
FIR as well as consequent proceedings pending adjudication in the
competent court of law are allowed to sustain, rather pendency of the
same may further widen the rift inter se parties. He further states that
otherwise also chances of conviction of the petitioner-accused are
very remote and bleak on account of statement made by the
complainant on oath and as such, this court may proceed to pass
appropriate orders.
10. The question, which now needs consideration is whether
FIR 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
Section 482 Cr.P.C (hereinafter to be referred to as the "Code") is not
to be exercised in the cases which involve heinous and serious
offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity,
etc., as such offences are not private in nature and have a serious
impact on society.
11. 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 above, clearly depicts
that in para 29.1, Hon'ble Apex Court has returned the findings that
power conferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C is to be distinguished from
the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under
Section 320 Cr.P.C. No doubt, under Section 482 Cr.P.C, 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.
12. 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.
13. 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 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 are of a personal nature, burying them
would bring about peace and amity between the two sides.
14. 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.
15. 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, and as
such, 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 complainant have compromised the matter
inter se them, in which case, possibility of conviction is remote and no
fruitful purpose would be served in continuing with the criminal
proceedings.
16. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion as well
as law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court (supra), FIR No. 277 of
.
2020, dated 24.07.2020, under Sections 279 & 337 of Indian Penal
Code, at Police Station Sunder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P. , as well as
consequent proceedings, if any, pending adjudication in the
competent court of law are quashed and set aside. Accused is
acquitted of the charges framed against him.
17. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms,
alongwith all pending applications.
(Sandeep Sharma),
Judge
July 26, 2024
(sunil)
