Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1739 (HP)

Sanjay Kashyap v. State Of H P

2018-09-27

DHARAM CHAND CHAUDHARY

body2018
JUDGMENT Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. - Learned Deputy Advocate General has placed on record the fresh status report and the I.O. ASI Anirudh of Police Station, Kangra has produced the record. 2. Petitioner No.1 Sanjay Kashyap herein is an accused in FIR No. 227/2017 registered under Sections 279, 337, 338 IPC and Section 181 of Motor Vehicle Act in Police Station, Kangra on 6.8.2017. He allegedly was driving Car bearing registration No. HP-39B-0538. His co-accused is respondent No. 2 Vijay Kumar who was on the wheel of the offending HRTC bus bearing registration No. HP-68-6286. Petitioners No. 2 to 4 herein are the victims of the accident. As per the investigation conducted by the police in this case both accused were driving their respective vehicles in a rash and negligent manner. The investigating agency has formed such opinion keeping in view the circumstances such as no skid mark etc. available on the spot during its inspection conducted by the I.O. immediately after the accident. The other evidence suggesting prima facie that they both were driving the car and offending bus in a rash and negligent manner has also been collected by the investigating agency. The challan stand filed and the case presently is at the stage of consideration of charge by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra, HP. 3. This petition has been filed on the grounds, inter alia, that the victims of the accident i.e. petitioners No. 2 to 4 have compromised the matter with both the accused and they are not interested to prosecute them any further. 4. As a matter of fact, in the case in hand the machinery has been put in motion not by the victims of the accident but by the police itself as the FIR has been registered on the basis of the rukka sent to police station by HC Raksh Pal, the Investigating officer of this case. Otherwise also, the Apex Court in Parbatbhai Aahir alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Others versus State of Gujarat and another , (2017) 9 SCC 641 has settled broad principles to be taken into consideration at the time of consideration of an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed with a prayer to quash the FIR/complaint/criminal proceedings by the High Court in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. The legal principles so laid down relevant for the purpose of this petition are reproduced as under: "16.5. The legal principles so laid down relevant for the purpose of this petition are reproduced as under: "16.5. The decision as to whether a complaint or First Information Report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated; 16.6. In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences; 16.7. As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing in so far as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned; 16.8. Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute; 16.9. In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice." 5. It is, therefore, well settled that quashing of FIR on the basis of the compromise between the victim of the occurrence and accused persons depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated. Also that the trial Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offences. The Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity should not be quashed even if the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute with the accused being not private in nature but have serious impact upon the society. The Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity should not be quashed even if the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute with the accused being not private in nature but have serious impact upon the society. Of course, the criminal cases having element of civil dispute and stood on distinct footing should be quashed in exercise of the inherent power vested in the Act. 6. Now if coming to the case in hand, both accuseddrivers, prima faice, were rash and negligent while driving their respective vehicles. The vehicle driven by respondentaccused Vijay Kumar was HRTC bus, whereas by petitioner No.1-accused Sanjay Kashyap, Maruti car. An offence if found to be committed under Section 279 IPC not only cause loss and injury to the victims but also has its impact on the society as a whole i.e. the pedestrian and other road users. It become more serious keeping in view the increase in road accidents. As a matter of fact, the violation of the traffic rules and laws by the drivers driving the vehicles on road is now a common phenomenon. There is no traffic sense on the road. Therefore, an offence of this nature in the present time has become more heinous and grievous in nature. True it is that in appropriate cases the jurisdiction vested can be exercised but not in each and every case. 7. The present, as such, is an exceptional case because respondent-accused Vijay Kumar who had been driving the HRTC bus and a public servant was expected to have observed more care and caution while driving the bus on the road. It was also expected from accused-petitioner No. 1 Sanjay Kashyap to have driven the car by observing the traffic rules and taking all precautions. The victims of the accidents (petitioners No. 2 to 4 ) may have settled the matter with the accused persons, however, the present in view of the discussion hereinabove is not a fit case where the FIR should be quashed. The criminal proceedings against both accused, therefore, need to be taken to its logical end. 8. For all the reasons hereinabove, there is no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. 9. The observations hereinabove shall remain confined to the disposal of this petition and have no bearing on the merits of the case. The criminal proceedings against both accused, therefore, need to be taken to its logical end. 8. For all the reasons hereinabove, there is no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. 9. The observations hereinabove shall remain confined to the disposal of this petition and have no bearing on the merits of the case. 10. The petition stands disposed of accordingly, so also the pending application(s), if any.