Date Of Decision: 20.09.2024 vs State Of H.P. & Ors
2024 Latest Caselaw 14201 HP

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Date Of Decision: 20.09.2024 vs State Of H.P. & Ors on 20 September, 2024

Author: Sandeep Sharma

Bench: Sandeep Sharma

2024:HHC:9005

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr.MMO No.416 of 2024 Date of Decision: 20.09.2024

.

_______________________________________________________

Rajbardhan Singh Gusain .......Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .....Respondents

_______________________________________________________ Coram:

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting? 1

For the Petitioner: r Mr. Paras 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. Sunil Gautam, Advocate, for respondents

No. 2 & 3.

_______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral):

By way of instant petition filed under Section 482 of Code

of Criminal Procedure, prayer has been made on behalf of petitioner

for quashing of FIR No. 0118 of 2021, dated 21.11.2021, under

Sections 279, 337 & 338 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 187 of

Motor Vehicles Act, registered at Police Station Nahan, District

Sirmaur, H.P., as well as consequent proceedings, if any, pending

adjudication in the competent court of law, on the basis of the

Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

compromise arrived inter se parties, whereby they have resolved to

settle the 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. Ishwar

Chand (hereinafter to be referred to as 'complainant'), who alleged

that on 21.11.2021, while he alongwith his wife Kavita Rani was going

towards Nahan, District Sirmaur in his scooty Temp. No.

T1121HR4972BJ and had reached near Dosarka, car bearing

registration No. UK-07DW-7382 being driven by the petitioner came

at high speed and hit his scooty, as a result of which, he as well as

his wife fell on the ground and suffered multiple injuries. Since

complainant specifically alleged that accident occurred on account of

rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car, as detailed

hereinabove, FIR, sought to be quashed, came to be instituted

against him.

3. Though, after completion of investigation, Police has

already presented challan in the competent Court of law against the

petitioner-accused, but before same could be taken to its logical end,

parties have entered into compromise, whereby they have resolved to

settle the dispute amicably inter 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 direction issued by this Court, respondent-

State has filed status report under the signatures of SHO, Police

Station Nahan, District Sirmaur, H.P., which is silent about the

compromise. However, complainant and respondent No. 3, who

allegedly suffered injuries in the accident, have come present in Court

and are being represented by Mr. Sunil Gautam, Advocate. They

state 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 the dispute amicably

inter se them. They state that FIR sought to be quashed is a result of

misunderstanding because on the date of alleged incident, 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 complainant and respondent No. 3 were taken

good care by the petitioner, while they were under treatment and

complainant has been adequately compensated qua the damage

caused to his vehicle, they do not wish to prosecute the case further

and 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 statements made on oath by

complainant and respondents No. 3, 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. He further states that otherwise also chances of conviction of

the petitioner-accused are very remote and bleak on account of

statements made by complainant and respondents No. 3 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

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 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

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, complainant and respondents No. 3

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. 0118 of

2021, dated 21.11.2021, under Sections 279, 337 & 338 of the Indian

Penal Code and Section 187 of Motor Vehicles Act, at Police Station

.

Nahan, District Sirmaur, 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),
                           r                                    Judge
    September 20, 2024

           (sunil)