Himachal Pradesh High Court
Pankaj Thakur vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others on 22 October, 2024
1
( 2024:HHC:10085 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr.MMO No.834 of 2024
Date of Decision : 22.10.2024
Pankaj Thakur
...... Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and others
......Respondents
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the petitioner : Mr. Yug Singhal and Mr. Hitender Kumar Verma,
Advocates.
For the respondents : Mr. Diwakar Dev Sharma, Additional Advocate
General, for respondent No.1/State.
Ms. Ananya Sharma, Advocate, for respondents
No.2 and 3.
Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral)
By way of instant petition filed under Section 528 of the
Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, a prayer has been made on
behalf of the petitioner for quashing of FIR No.0117 dated 11.11.2023,
under Sections 279, 337 and Section 304-A (which Section was added
later on during the pendency of the proceedings before the trial Court) of
the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station, Jhandutta, District
Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh, as well as consequent judicial proceedings
pending before learned trial Court.
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
( 2024:HHC:10085 )
2. Original Compromise Deed (Annexure P-2) has been placed
on record. As per the averments contained in the petition, which is duly
supported by an affidavit, it is revealed that on 11.11.2023, complainant/
respondent No.2 had got a FIR registered against the present petitioner
under Sections 279, 337 of the Indian Penal Code. As a sequel thereto,
Challan has been presented before the learned trial Court. During
pendency of the proceedings before the trial Court, Section 304-A of the
Indian Penal Code was added. However, during the pendency of
proceedings, the dispute inter se parties has been settled amicably vide
Compromise Deed dated 27.08.2024, copy whereof, is appended
alongwith the present petition. The Compromise Deed has been entered
into at the intervention of elder relatives and respectable members of the
society with an intent to settle the dispute inter se parties.
3. Statements of complainant/respondent No.2 and respondent
No.3 (mother of the deceased victim) stand recorded. They have
categorically stated that they have entered into compromise of their own
free will, volition and without any pressure. According to
complainant/respondent No.2 and respondent No.3 (mother of the
deceased/victim), the dispute inter se parties stands amicably settled.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record carefully.
5. This Court sees no impediment in quashing the FIR in issue,
as the dispute inter se the parties stands amicably resolved.
( 2024:HHC:10085 )
6. From a perusal of Section 359 of the Bhartiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, it is evident that Sections 279 & 304-A of the
Indian Penal Code are not compoundable.
7. In this respect, attention of this Court has been drawn to
case titled Narinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another
reported as (2014) 6 Supreme Court Cases, 466, wherein the Apex Court
has categorically laid down that the High Court has inherent power to
quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases, which are not
compoundable, where the parties have amicably settled the matter inter
se them. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with
caution, in cases where settlement is arrived at. The guiding factors being
securing the ends of justice are to prevent an abuse of the process of any
Court.
8. Further, the Apex Court in Parbatbhai Aahir alias
Parbathbhai Bhimsinghbhai Karmur and others vs. State of Gujarat
and another, (2017) 9 SCC 641 summarizing the broad principles
regarding inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
has recognized that these powers are not inhibited by provisions of
Section 320 Cr.P.C.
9. In view of the fact that the parties have entered into
compromise permitting the proceedings in pursuance to the aforesaid FIR
sought to be quashed to continue would only result into an abuse of
process and the same would not secure the ends of justice.
( 2024:HHC:10085 )
10. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. FIR No.0117 dated
11.11.2023, under Sections 279, 337 304-A of the Indian Penal Code,
registered at Police Station, Jhandutta, District Bilaspur, Himachal
Pradesh, is quashed and consequent judicial proceedings pending before
learned trial Court, are also quashed.
11. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also
the pending application(s), if any.
( Bipin Chander Negi)
October 22, 2024 (KS) Judge
