Himachal Pradesh High Court
Date Of Decision: 03.10.2024 vs State Of H.P. & Others on 3 October, 2024
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
2024:HHC:9513
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr.MMO No.899 of 2024
Date of Decision: 03.10.2024
_______________________________________________________
Ankush Shyam .......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. H.C.Sharma, 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. Vijay Mokhta, Advocate, for respondent
Nos. 2 and 3.
_______________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral):
By way of instant petition filed under Section 528 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,2023, prayer has been made on
behalf of the petitioner for quashing of FIR No.54 of 2024, dated
22.08.2024, under Sections 281 and 125(a)of Bhartiya Nyaya
Sanhita, registered at police Station Shimla East, 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, 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:9513
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. Mohan
(hereinafter referred to as the complainant), who alleged that on
22.08.2024, he alongwith his brother-in-law (Jija) namely, Mani Ram
was going towards Panthaghati from Kasumpti in car No. HP-08C-
3005, but when afore vehicle reached near R.V.K. School Kasumpti,
his brother-in-law Mani Ram stopped the vehicle on the side of the
road to receive a telephonic call and at 7.50 PM, while his brother-in-
law was talking to somebody on phone, vehicle bearing registration
No. HP-09B-2436 came from behind and hit car being driven by his
brother-in-law, as a result of which, he as well as his brother-in-law
suffered multiple injuries. Since complainant, named hereinabove,
alleged that accident occurred on account of rash and negligent
driving of the petitioner, FIR, sought to be quashed, came to be
instituted against him. However, before same could be taken to its
logical end, parties have entered into compromise, whereby they
resolved to settle the dispute amicably interse them. In the aforesaid
background, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for
quashing of the FIR as well as consequent proceedings.
3. Pursuant to order dated 16.9.2024, respondent-State has
filed status report under the signature of SHO, police Station East
Shimla, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, wherein factum of
compromise has been duly acknowledged. Alongwith aforesaid status
2024:HHC:9513
report, police has also placed on record statement given by the
parties, whereby they while acknowledging factum of the compromise,
have decided not to prosecute the case further. Besides above,
respondent No.2/complainant Mohan and injured Mani Ram have
also come present in Court and are being represented by Mr. Vijay
Mokhta, 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 petitioner, whereby they have
resolved to settle their dispute amicably interse them. They state 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 error of judgment. They state that
since they have fully recovered from the injuries suffered by them in
the accident, coupled with the fact that they have been duly
compensated qua the damage caused to their vehicle, they do not
wish to prosecute the case further and shall have no objection in
case prayer made on behalf of petitioner for quashing of the FIR as
well as consequent proceedings, if any, pending adjudication in the
competent Court of law, is accepted and petitioner-accused is
acquitted of the charges framed against him.
4. Mr. B.C.Verma, learned Additional Advocate General,
after having heard the aforesaid statements made by respondent
No.2/ complainant and respondent No.3/injured, fairly states that no
fruitful purpose would be served in case FIR as well as consequent
2024:HHC:9513
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
respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and as such, respondent-State shall have no
objection in case the prayer made in the petition is allowed.
5. 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.
6. 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
2024:HHC:9513
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.
7. 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.
8. 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
2024:HHC:9513
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.
9. 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.
2024:HHC:9513
10. In the case at hand also, offences alleged to have been
committed by 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, respondent No.2/complainant and respondent
No.3/injured 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.
11. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion as well
as law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court (supra), FIR No.54 of
2024, dated 22.08.2024, under Sections 281 and 125(a) of Bhartiya
Nyaya Sanhita, registered at police Station Shimla East, 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.
12. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms,
alongwith all pending applications.
13.
(Sandeep Sharma),
Judge
October 03, 2024
(shankar)
