Himachal Pradesh High Court
Monu Kumar vs State Of H.P. & Another on 29 July, 2024
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr.MMO No.691 of 2024
Date of Decision: 29.07.2024
.
_______________________________________________________
Monu Kumar .......Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. & another ... Respondents
_______________________________________________________
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? 1
For the Petitioner:
r to
Mr. Ramesh Sharma and Mr. Rajat Sharma,
Advocates.
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 No.1/State.
Mr. Piyush Dhanotia, Advocate, for
respondent No.2.
_______________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral):
By way of instant petition filed under Section 528 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, prayer has been made on
behalf of the petitioner for quashing of FIR No. 37 of 2016, dated
19.4.2016, under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC, registered at police
Station Kotkhai, District Shimla, 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-3), 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. Rohit Kumar
(hereinafter referred to as the complainant), who alleged that on
19.04.2016, at about 9.00 AM, mechanic Monu alongwith her sister
namely, Archana and Renu were going towards Gumma from Anu in
his car bearing registration No. HP-09A-1900. He alleged that when
above named persons reached Gumma, Archana and Renu alighted
from the vehicle, whereas he alongwith Monu went towards Bagada,
but when they reached near Baggi, vehicle rolled down from the road,
as a result thereof, he as well as Monu both suffered injuries. Since
above named complainant alleged that accident occurred on account
of rash and negligent driving of the Monu, FIR sought to be quashed
in the instant proceedings, came to be lodged against the petitioner.
Though, after completion of the investigation, police has already
presented the challan in the competent Court of law, but before the
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.
3. Pursuant to order dated 22.07.2024, respondent-State
has filed status report under the signatures of SHO, police Station
.
Kotkhai, District Shimla, H.P.,wherien factum of compromise stands
duly recorded.
4. Respondent No.2/complainant has come present in Court
and is being represented by Mr. Piyush Dhanotia, 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
their dispute amicably interse them. He states that FIR, sought to be
quashed, is result of misunderstanding because accident did not
occur on account of rash and negligent driving of the petitioner, rather
on account of mechanical defect. He states that since he as well as
petitioner has already recovered from the injuries, he shall have no
objection in case prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for quashing
of the FIR as well as consequent proceedings, if any, pending
adjudication in the competent Court of law, is accepted. 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 statement made by respondent No. 2
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 the complainant/respondent No.2 as such,
respondent-State shall have no objection in case the prayer made in
the petition is allowed.
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
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
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,
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 No.2 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. FIR No.
37 of 2016, dated 19.4.2016, under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC,
registered at police Station Kotkhai, District Shimla, 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
July 29, 2024
(shankar)
