Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1394 (HP)

Rohit Chauhan v. State Of Himachal Pradesh

2017-12-15

VIVEK SINGH THAKUR

body2017
JUDGMENT Vivek Singh Thakur, J. —This petition has been filed by petitioner-accused, for quashing FIR No. 453 of 2014, dated 23.12.2014, under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code and 196 of M.V. Act, registered with Police Station, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P. and criminal proceedings initiated in pursuance thereto, on the basis of compromise, arrived at between petitioner-accused and injured-respondent No. 2. 2. Respondent No. 2 injured and respondent No. 3 complainant, present in person in Court, duly identified by counsel, endorse compromise, (original compromise is placed on record), and in their statements, recorded on oath in this Court, have reiterated signing of the compromise by respondent No. 2 with accused. They also deposed to the effect that the accident had not occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of accused. Complainant-respondent No. 3 has deposed that after visualizing the entire scene of the spot in the light of facts and circumstances bought in his knowledge by others present on the spot, he felt that accident had not happened because of rash and negligent act of petitioner, but for other reasons, as injured respondent No. 2 Rakesh Kumar was standing on road, Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes who was hit by motorcycle driven by petitioner in the course of avoiding collusion of motorcycle with other vehicles plying on the road at that time and for this reason respondent No. 2 has also compromised the matter with the petitioner, therefore, he (complainant) does do not want to proceed with criminal proceeding against petitioner. The deposition of respondent No. 2- injured is also to the same effect. 3. It is contended on behalf of respondent-State that accused is not entitled to invoke inherent jurisdiction of this Court to exercise its power on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties with respect to an offence not compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C., 1973 4. Three Judges Bench of the Apex Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors. Three Judges Bench of the Apex Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors. reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 explaining that High Court has inherent power under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with no statutory limitation including Section 320 Cr.PC, has held that these powers are to be exercised to secure the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process of any Court and these powers can be exercised to quash criminal proceedings or complaint or FIR in appropriate cases where offender and victim have settled their dispute and for that purpose no definite category of offence can be prescribed. However, it is also observed that Courts must have due regard to nature and gravity of the crime and criminal proceedings in heinous and serious offences or offence like murder, rape and dacoity etc. should not be quashed despite victim or victim family have settled the dispute with offender. Jurisdiction vested in High Court under Section 482 Cr.PC is held to be exercisable for quashing criminal proceedings in cases having overwhelming and predominatingly civil flavour particularly offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil partnership, or such like transactions, or even offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry etc., family disputes or other such disputes where wrong is basically private or personal nature where parties mutually resolve their dispute amicably. It was also held that no category or cases for this purpose could be prescribed and each case has to be dealt with on its own merit but it is also clarified that this power does not extend to crimes against society. 5. The Apex Court, in case Narinder Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors. (2014) 6 SCC 466 has sum up and laid down principles, by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with criminal proceedings. 6. No doubt Section 279 of IPC is not compoundable under Section 320 Cr. 6. No doubt Section 279 of IPC is not compoundable under Section 320 Cr. P.C., 1973 However, as explained by Hon''ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh''s and Narinder Singh''s cases supra, power of High Court under Section 482 Cr.PC is not inhibited by the provisions of Section 320 Cr.PC and FIR as well as criminal proceedings can be quashed by exercising inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.PC, it was warranted in given facts and circumstances of the case for ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court, even in those cases which are not compoundable where parties have settled the matter between themselves. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner-accused has also relied upon judgments of this Court passed in Cr.R. No. 90 of 2010, titled Vivek Singh v. State of H.P., decided on 24.8.2016 , Cr. MMO No. 17 of 2017, titled Rakesh Kumar & another v. State of H.P. decided on 3.3.2017 and Cr. Revision No. 134 of 2007, titled Ravinder Kumar v. State of H.P., decided on 9.3.2017. 8. In present case, complainant-respondent No. 3 and injured respondent No. 2, who are also spot witness have appeared in person in this Court and have endorsed the compromise filed with petition duly signed by respondent No. 2-injured and petitioner-accused. Their statements recorded on oath in the Court, do not disclose the rash and negligent driving of accused, rather reflect that even in case criminal proceedings are allowed to continue, there is no probability of conviction of accused. It is also stated that the complaint was lodged by respondent No. 3 on the basis of his observation, which after having vision of others present on the spot, he feels not to be correct. Respondents No. 2-injured and respondent No. 3-complainant have categorically stated that in these circumstances, they are not interested to continue with criminal proceedings against accused. 9. Offence in question does not fall in the category of offences termed to be prohibited, in the pronouncements of Apex Court, to be compounded exercising power under section 482 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 In view of statements of respondent No. 2-injured and complainant-respondent No. 3 recorded on oath in this Court, probability of conviction is also too remote. 10. 9. Offence in question does not fall in the category of offences termed to be prohibited, in the pronouncements of Apex Court, to be compounded exercising power under section 482 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 In view of statements of respondent No. 2-injured and complainant-respondent No. 3 recorded on oath in this Court, probability of conviction is also too remote. 10. Considering facts and circumstances of the case in entirety, I am of the opinion that present petition deserves to be allowed for ends of justice and the same is allowed accordingly and FIR No. 453 of 2014, dated 23.12.2014, registered under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of IPC and under Section 196 of M.V. Act at Police Station, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P. is quashed. Consequent to quashing of FIR, criminal case No. 89 of 2015, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Court No. 1, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour, H.P. also stands quashed. Petition stands disposed of in above terms.