Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1096 (HP)

Manjinder Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2018-06-14

VIVEK SINGH THAKUR

body2018
JUDGMENT : Vivek Singh Thakur, J. This petition has been filed by petitioner accused, pending investigation in criminal proceedings in case under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and Sections 187 & 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1998, (for short ‘M.V. Act), in FIR No. 283 of 2017, dated 13.06.2017, registered with Police Station, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P., for quashing the FIR and criminal proceedings initiated in pursuance thereto, on the basis of affidavit tendered by respondent No. 2-complainant, (Annexure P-1). 2. Petitioner is present in person in Court. Respondent No. 2-complainant/injured, who is also present in person in Court, duly identified by his counsel, endorses affidavit, Annexure P-1 and in his statement, recorded on oath in this Court, he has not only reiterated signing of the affidavit by him, but also deposed to the effect that the accident had not occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of accused. Complainant has deposed that on the basis of observation, at that time, and information received from the persons who had seen the accident, he had drawn the conclusion that the accident had taken place on account of rash and negligent act of petitioner and accordingly, he had lodged the complaint with the police. However, later on, after ascertaining the complete facts, he found that his impression that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent act of the petitioner was incorrect, therefore, he does not want to proceed with criminal proceeding against petitioner. 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 affidavit tendered by complainant with respect to an offence not compoundable under Section 320 Cr.PC. 4. Three Judges Bench of the Apex Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Ors. 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 affidavit tendered by complainant with respect to an offence not compoundable under Section 320 Cr.PC. 4. Three Judges Bench of the Apex Court in Gian Singh Vs. 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 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’s 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 predominating 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 of 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. Vs. State of Punjab and Ors., reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 , has summed up and laid down principles, by which the High Courts 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. 6. Sections 337 and 338 of IPC are compoundable and Section 279 of IPC is not compoundable under Section 320 Cr. P.C. 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. Challan against the petitioner has also been presented under Section 196 of the M.V. Act, which provides that punishment for driving a vehicle without insurance in contravention of the provisions of Section 196 of the M.V. Act, is imprisonment, which may extend to three years or with fine, which may extend to Rs. 1,000/- or with both. Offence under Section 196 of the MV Act is an offence against public at large and respondent No. 2 is neither competent nor having authority to compromise the offence committed under Section 196 of the MV Act. However, in Section 200 of the MV Act, offence under Section 196 of the MV Act has been made compoundable on payment of fine. 8. In present case, complainant-injured has appeared in person in the Court and has endorsed the affidavit filed with petition duly signed by him. His statement recorded on oath in the Court, does not disclose the rash and negligent driving of accused, rather reflects 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. 2 on the basis of his observation and information supplied by passers-by, which he feels not to be correct and in these circumstances, he is 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.PC. In view of statement of respondent No. 2, 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.PC. In view of statement of respondent No. 2, 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. 283 of 2017, dated 13.06.2017, under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the IPC and Sections 187 & 196 of the M.V. Act, registered at Police Station, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour, H.P. is quashed, subject to payment of fine by the petitioner amounting to Rs. 1,000/- for committing an offence under Section 196 of the M.V. Act in the trial Court within six weeks from today. Consequent to quashing of FIR, needless to say, criminal proceedings, if any, initiated in pursuance to aforesaid FIR by now, also stands quashed. Petition stands disposed of in above terms.