Tarun Sharma vs State Of H.P. & Others
2024 Latest Caselaw 8847 HP

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Tarun Sharma vs State Of H.P. & Others on 4 July, 2024

Author: Sandeep Sharma

Bench: Sandeep Sharma

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr.MMO No.440 of 2024 Date of Decision: 04.07.2024

.

_______________________________________________________

Tarun Sharma .......Petitioner Versus

State of H.P. & others ... Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram:

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1

For the Petitioner:

Mr. Ajay Sipahiya, Advocate.

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. Prashant Sharma, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

_______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral):

By way of instant petition filed under Section 482 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, prayer has been made on behalf of the

petitioner for quashing of FIR No. 14 of 2024, dated 09.01.2024,

under Sections 279,337 of IPC and Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles

Act, registered at police Station Nagrota Bagwan, District Kangra,

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?

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. Pankaj

(hereinafter referred to as the complainant), who alleged that on

09.01.2024, he alongwith his Bhabi had gone to Tanda Hospital on

his motorcycle No. HP-37-H-2701. He alleged that while aforesaid

motorcycle reached Hatwas, National Highway 154, a car bearing

registration No.HP-37-F-5012 being driven by the petitioner came in

high speed from wrong side and hit his motorcycle, as a result of

which, he alongwith his Bhabi fell on the road and suffered multiple

injuries. Though, after completion of the investigation, police

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 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. Vide order dated 24.05.2024, this Court with a view to

ascertain the correctness and genuineness of the compromise placed

on record, deemed it necessary to cause presence of the parties in

the Court, especially respondents No.2 and 3. Besides above, this

Court also called upon the respondent-State to file status report,

specifically stating therein factum of compromise, if any. Though,

respondent-State has filed status report under the signatures of the

SHO, police Station, Nagrota Bagwan, Kangra, but same is silent

.

about the compromise.

4. Respondent No.2/complainant and respondent No.3/

injured have come present in Court and are being represented by Mr.

Prashant Sharma, Advocate. They state on oath before this Court that

they of their own volition and without there being any external

pressure have entered into the compromise with the petitioner,

whereby both the parties have resolved to settle their dispute

amicably interse them. They state that accident did not occur on

account of rash and negligent driving of the petitioner, rather on

account of error of judgment. They state that since after the accident

petitioner took good care of respondent No.3/injured and they have

been duly compensated qua the damage caused to their motorcycle

and expenditure incurred on their treatment, they 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 content of the compromise placed on record to be

correct, they also admit their signatures upon the same. Their

statements are taken on record.

5. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General,

after having heard the aforesaid statements made by respondent Nos.

2 and 3 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 Nos.2 and 3 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 Nos.2 and 3 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. 14 of

2024, dated 09.01.2024, under Sections 279,337 of IPC and Section

187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, registered at police Station Nagrota

Bagwan, District Kangra, 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 04, 2024
          (shankar)





                            r           to