Himachal Pradesh High Court
Date Of Decision: 11.09.2024 vs State Of H.P. & Anr on 11 September, 2024
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
2024:HHC:8342
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr.MMO No.879 of 2024
Date of Decision: 11.09.2024
.
_______________________________________________________
Rahul .......Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. & Anr. .....Respondents
_______________________________________________________
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? 1
For the Petitioner: Mr. N.K.Thakur, Senior Advocate, with Mr.
Karan Veer Singh, 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. Nitish Negi, Advocate, for respondent
No.2.
IO/HC Rajneesh No. 129, PS Kangra, District
Kangra, HP, present in person.
_______________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral):
By way of instant petition filed under Section 528 of the
Baratiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, prayer has been made on behalf
of petitioner-accused for quashing of FIR No. 137 of 2024, dated
21.07.2024, under Sections 281 and 125(a) of BNS, registered at
Police Station Kangra, District Kangra, H.P., on the basis of the
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2024:HHC:8342
compromise arrived inter se parties, whereby parties have resolved to
settle their dispute amicably inter se them.
.
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 Mr. Parshotam
Chand (hereinafter 'complainant'), who alleged that on 21.07.2024 at
12:00 noon, while he had come to Samela Bazar and was present
nearly Samela Post office, car bearing registration No. HP-39E-3831
came from Kangra side at high speed and hit him, as a result thereof,
he fell on the ground and suffered multiple injuries. Since, above
named complainant alleged that accident occurred on account of rash
and negligent driving of the petitioner-accused, FIR sought to be
quashed, came to be lodged against him.
3. Before challan, if any, could be filed before the competent
Court of law by the police, parties have entered into compromise,
whereby they have resolved to settle the dispute amicably inter se
them. In the aforesaid background, petitioner-accused has
approached this Court in the instant proceedings, for quashing of FIR.
4. Pursuant to order dated 09.09.2024, respondent-State
has filed status report under the signatures of Station House Officer,
PS Kangra, District Kangra, H.P., wherein factum of compromise has
been duly acknowledged. Alongwith aforesaid status report, police
2024:HHC:8342
has also placed on record statement given by the complainant,
wherein he has fairly acknowledged the factum of compromise arrived
.
inter se parties. Besides above, complainant has also come present
and is being represented by Mr. Nitish Negi, Advocate. He states on
oath that he of his own volition and without any external pressure has
entered into compromise with the petitioner-accused, whereby both
the parties have resolved to settle the dispute amicably inter se them.
He states that FIR sought to be quashed is a result of
misunderstanding because accident did not occur due to rash and
negligent driving by the petitioner-accused, rather same took place on
account of error of judgment. He states that since after accident
petitioner-accused has provided necessary medical aid to him and
incurred entire medical expenditure, he does not wish to prosecute
the case further and as such, 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, he
also admits his signatures thereupon. His statement is taken on
record.
5. After having heard aforesaid statement made on oath by
the complainant, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate
General, fairly states that no fruitful purpose would be served in case
2024:HHC:8342
FIR is allowed to sustain. He further states that otherwise also
chances of conviction of the petitioner-accused are very remote and
.
bleak on account of statement made by the complainant 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., as 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 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
2024:HHC:8342
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.
2024:HHC:8342
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 are 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
2024:HHC:8342
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-accused do not involve offences of moral
turpitude or any grave/heinous crime, rather same are petty offences,
and 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-accused and complainant have compromised
the matter inter se 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. 137 of
2024, dated 21.07.2024, under Sections 281 and 125(a) of BNS, at
Police Station Kangra, District Kangra, H.P., is 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
September 11, 2024
(sunil)
