Himachal Pradesh High Court
Date Of Decision: 16.10.2024 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Ors on 16 October, 2024
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
2024:HHC:9839
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CrMMO No984 of 2024
Date of Decision: 16.10.2024
_____________________________________________________________________
Suraj Kumar
.........Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
.......Respondents
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?
For the Petitioner: Mr. Sanjay Jaswal, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.
Verma, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi
Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for the State.
Mr. Pawan Kumar Thakur, Advocate, for
respondent No.2.
___________________________________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)
By way of present petition, prayer has been made by the
petitioner-accused for quashing of FIR No. 225/2017 dated 14.7.2017,
registered at Police Station Nurpur, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh,
under Sections 279, and 304-A of IPC and Sections 181 and 196 of the MV
Act alongwith consequential proceedings pending in the competent court of
law.
2. Precisely the case of the petitioner, as emerge from the
pleadings is that the FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings
2024:HHC:9839
came to be lodged at the behest of respondent No.3-complainant Sh. Mehar
Singh, who has now expired, alleging therein that on 14.7.2017, at about
4:15pm, while he was on duty at filling Station Jhanjhwan, one scooty
bearing registration No. HP 38D 4998, being driven by Sh. Satpal took turn
towards filling station, but in the meantime, one motorcycle bearing
registration No. HP-38A 9237 came in high speed from the opposite side
and hit the scooty being driven by Sh. Satpal, as a result thereof, drivers of
both the vehicles fell down on the road and sustained injuries. Since
complainant 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.
3. Though police has presented challan in the competent court of
law after completion of investigation, but before same could be taken to its
logical end, petitioner and respondent No.2 have entered into compromise,
whereby parties have resolved to settle the dispute inter se them amicably.
In the aforesaid background, petitioner-accused has approached this court
in the instant proceedings, praying therein for quashing of FIR and
consequential proceedings in the competent court of law.
4. Pursuant to order dated 4.10.2024, respondent-State has filed
status report under the signature of SHO Police Station Nurpur, District
2024:HHC:9839
Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, which is silent about the compromise, rather
perusal of same reveals that prosecution launched against the petitioner is
still pending adjudication before the competent court of law. Besides
above, respondent No.2 Ms. Baby Rani, widow of Sh. Satpal, has come
present and is being represented by Mr. Pawan Kumar Thakur, Advocate.
5. Respondent No.3, at whose instance FIR sought to be quashed,
came to be instituted, has expired on 16.11.2019, which fact stands duly
acknowledged by respondent No.2 Ms. Baby Rani. To substantiate factum
of death of complainant/respondent No.3, learned counsel for the petitioner
has also placed on record death certificate issued by the competent
authority, perusal whereof clearly reveals/establishes factum of death of
respondent No.3.
6. Respondent No.2 Ms. Baby Rani states on oath that she, of her
own volition and without any external pressure, has entered into
compromise with the petitioner-accused, whereby they have resolved to
settle the dispute inter-se them amicably. She states that since FIR is a
result of mis-understanding and accident in question did not occur due to
rash and negligent driving of the petitioner-accused, rather on account of
error of judgment coupled with the fact that she was duly supported by the
petitioner and his family after the death of her husband, she shall have no
2024:HHC:9839
objection in case FIR alongwith consequential proceedings is quashed and
set aside and petitioner-accused is acquitted of the charges framed against
him. She further states that on account of pendency of the criminal case
lodged at the behest of respondent No.3, carrier of the petitioner who is a
young person, would be spoiled and as such, she on the guidance of the
respectable members of the society, has decided not to pursue the case.
While admitting contents of the compromise to be correct, she also admits
her signatures thereupon.
7. Having heard statement made on oath by respondent No.2-
complainant, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General states
that no fruitful purpose will be served in case FIR as well consequent
proceedings are allowed to continue against the petitioner. He further
states that otherwise also, chances of conviction of the petitioner are
remote and bleak, on account of statement made by complainant, as such,
he shall have no objection in case prayer made on behalf of the petitioner is
accepted and FIR in question alongwith consequential proceedings is
quashed and set aside and petitioner is acquitted.
8. 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
2024:HHC:9839
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. Such offences are not
private in nature and have a serious impact on society.
9. 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.
2024:HHC:9839
10. 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.
11. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and
anr. (2012) 10 SCC 303 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
for compounding offences under Section 320 Cr.PC. 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.PC the
Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime and its
2024:HHC:9839
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.
12. 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.
13. 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
2024:HHC:9839
proceedings thereto, especially keeping in view the fact that respondent
No.2 and petitioner has compromised the matter inter-se them, in which
case, possibility of conviction of the petitioner is remote/bleak and no
fruitful purpose would be served in continuing with the criminal
proceedings.
14. Since parties have compromised the matter with each other
and respondent No.2-complainant, at whose instance FIR sought to be
quashed in the instant proceedings came to be lodged, is no more
interested in pursuing the criminal prosecution of the petitioner, this court
sees no impediment in accepting the prayer made on behalf of the
petitioner for quashing of the FIR alongwith all consequential proceedings.
15. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law
laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court (supra), FIR No. 225/2017 dated
14.7.2017, registered at Police Station Nurpur, District Kangra, Himachal
Pradesh, under Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC and Sections 181 and 196 of
the MV Act alongwith consequential proceedings, is quashed and set aside.
Accused is acquitted of the charges framed against him. The petition stands
disposed of in the aforesaid terms, alongwith all pending applications.
October 16, 2024 (Sandeep Sharma),
(manjit) Judge
DN: C=IN, O=HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL
VIKRANT 5d2f851af76d452c04fe80af0eb04901baccf523a9
62b5b328d35fb9075dbbb0, PostalCode=171001,
S=Himachal Pradesh, SERIALNUMBER=
b9ba41101dabcec1188a4f694ff769b34ac01c5f3
677265199bb13a3810dec17, CN=VIKRANT
CHANDEL CHANDEL
Reason: I am approving this document
Location:
Date: 2024.10.17 09:30:01+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.2.0
