Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2166 (HP)

Rajinder Singh v. State Of Himachal Pradesh

2018-12-06

VIVEK SINGH THAKUR

body2018
JUDGMENT Vivek Singh Thakur, J. - The instant petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (herein after referred to as ''Cr.PC'') has been filed by petitioneraccused, on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-3), arrived at between him and complainant-respondent No. 2, for quashing FIR No. 233 of 2018, dated 25.8.2018, under Sections 279, 337, 338 of the Indian Penal Code (herein after referred to as ''IPC'') read with Section 187 of MV Act, registered at Police Station Indora, District Kangra, H.P., and criminal proceedings initiated in pursuance thereto. 2. Respondent No. 2-complainant, Sh. Jagvir Singh is present in the Court today and endorsed compromise, Annexure P-3 in his statement recorded on oath in this Court, and also reiterated signing of the compromise by him with petitioner-accused with free consent and will, without any coercion and pressure. He deposed to the effect that the accident had not occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of accused-petitioner. He further deposed that at the time of accident he deboarded his son on other side of the road and was parking his vehicle on another side and during this process, his son was crossing the road for coming to me and suddenly he was hit by Motorcycle being driven by petitioner/accused. He further deposed that at that time as per information gathered from the persons present on the spot, he felt that it was rash and negligent act of the petitioner, which caused the accident, but later on petitioner/accused explained the circumstances, in which the accident had occurred and I feel that it was not rash and negligent act of the petitioner-accused only, but his child might have jumped into the road suddenly to reach him. Therefore, he expressed his desire not to proceed with criminal proceedings against accused-petitioner. 3. It is contended on behalf of respondent No. 1-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. 4. It is apt to record herein that a three Judges Bench of the Apex Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Ors. It is apt to record herein that a 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.P.C., 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.P.C. 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. Vs. State of Punjab and Ors. reported in , (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 Sections 279 is not compoundable under Section 320 Cr. 6. No doubt Sections 279 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.P.C. 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. In present case, complainant has also appeared in person in this Court and his statement, as discussed in para 2 supra, has also been recorded in this Court which does not disclosed rash and negligent act on the part of accused, rather reflects that even in case trial is continued, there is no probability of conviction of accused. He has also expressed no objection, in compounding the offence, rather he has compromised the matter with petitioner-accused. 8. Offences in question, for material on record, do 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. In view of statement of respondent No. 2-complainant, recorded on oath in this Court, probability of conviction is too remote. 9. Keeping in view the ratio of law laid down by the Hon''ble Apex Court and considering facts and evidence of the case in its entirety, present petition is allowed and matter is permitted to be compounded. Consequently, FIR No. 233 of 2018, dated 25.8.2018, registered under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC read with Section 187 of MV Act at Police Station, Indora, District Kangra, H.P. is quashed. Consequent to quashing of FIR, criminal proceedings, if any, pending in any Court, also stands quashed. 10. Petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.