Himachal Pradesh High Court
Date Of Decision: 09.07.2024 vs State Of H.P. & Ors on 9 July, 2024
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
2024:HHC:4812
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr.MMO No.328 of 2024
Date of Decision: 09.07.2024
.
_______________________________________________________
Sahil Kumar
.......Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. & Ors.
.....Respondents
_______________________________________________________
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? 1
For the Petitioner: Ms. Tanu Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. B.C. Verma,
Additional Advocate Generals, for
respondents No.1 & 2-State.
Mr. Jagan Nath, Advocate, for respondents
No.3 & 4.
_______________________________________________________
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.68 of 2021, dated 28.10.2021, under
Sections 279, 337 and 338 of Indian Penal Code, registered at Police
Station Rakkar, District Kangra, H.P., as well as consequent
proceedings, if any, pending adjudication in the competent court of
law, on the basis of the compromise arrived inter se parties, whereby
they have resolved to settle their dispute amicably inter se 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/complainant No. 3 Mr.
Chander Bhan (hereinafter to be referred to as 'complainant'), who
alleged that on 28.10.2021 at about 09:30 p.m., while he was
standing in front of his residential house, car bearing registration No.
HP-37D-1771 being driven by the petitioner-accused came in a high
speed and hit respondent No. 4 Ms. Kavita, who was coming towards
her house from the side of the road, as a result thereof, above named
person fell on the ground and suffered multiple injuries. In the
aforesaid background, FIR, as detailed herein above, came to be
lodged against the petitioners-accused under relevant provision of
Indian Penal Code.
3. Though, after completion of investigation, Police has
already presented challan in the competent court of law against the
petitioner-accused, but before the same could be taken to its logical
end, complainant, respondent No. 4 and petitioner-accused named in
the FIR have entered into compromise, whereby they have resolved
to settle their dispute amicably intere 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.
4. Pursuant to order dated 29.04.2024, respondent-State
has filed reply under the signatures of the Superintendent of Police,
.
Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P., which is silent about the compromise.
Respondents No. 3 and 4 have come present and are being
represented by Mr. Jagan Nath, Advocate, states on oath that they of
their own volition and without any external pressure have entered into
compromise with the petitioner-accused, whereby both the parties
have resolved to settle their dispute amicably interse them. They state
that accident did not occur due to rash and negligent driving by the
petitioner-accused, rather same took place on account of error of
judgment. They state that since after accident, injured Kavita was
taken good care by the petitioner and she stands duly compensated
qua the expenditure incurred during her treatment and as such, they
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, they also admit their
signatures thereupon. Their statements are taken on record.
5. After having heard aforesaid statement made on oath by
respondents No. 3 & 4, 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 is very
remote and bleak on account of complainant having made statement
on oath and as such, this court may proceed to pass appropriate
orders.
6. 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. 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 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.
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 petitioners 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 petitioners, complainant and respondent No. 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. 68 of
2021, dated 28.10.2021, under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of Indian
Penal Code, registered at Police Station Rakkar, District Kangra, 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.
.
13. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms,
alongwith all pending applications.
(Sandeep Sharma),
Judge
July 09, 2024
(sunil)
r to
