Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2178 (HP)

Joginder Pal v. State Of Himachal Pradesh

2018-12-07

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 petitioner- accused, on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-1), arrived at between petitioner-accused and complainant-respondent No. 2, for quashing FIR No. 89 of 2015, dated 23.7.2015, under Sections 279 and 337of the Indian Penal Code (herein after referred to as ''IPC''), registered at Police Station Jawalamukhi, District Kangra, H.P., and criminal proceedings initiated in pursuance thereto. 2. Respondent No. 2-complainant, Sh. Jatinder Singh was present in the Court on 21.11.2018, on which date his statement was recorded on oath, wherein he deposed that he has compromised the matter with the petitioner/accused, as accident has occurred suddenly on the spot. He further deposed that at the time of accident he thought that due to rash and negligent driving of the motor cycle rider, the accident had occurred, however, later on motor cyclist explained the reason for causing the accident and he is fully satisfied with the explanation given by the petitioner/accused and feel that it was not rash and negligent act of the motor cycle rider, but his motor cycle had collided with his car due to skid on the road. Therefore, he has compromised the matter with the petitioner/accused and does not want to pursue the criminal proceedings against the petitioner/accused. Respondent No. 3 Naresh Kumar, victim/pillion rider of motor cycle being driven by petitioner-accused is also present in the Court today and has endorsed compromise arrived at between petitioner/accused and complainant/respondent No. 2. Complainant/respondent No. 2 as well as respondent No. 3, pillion rider of Motorcycle in their statements recorded on oath in this Court, reiterated signing of the compromise with petitioner- accused with free consent and will, without any coercion and pressure of any kind. Respondent No. 3/victim, in his statement deposed that the accident had not occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of accused- petitioner, but the same had collided with the car of complainant after skidding on the road, and the same was not on account of negligent act of the petitioner. He further deposed that he being victim, has also compromised the matter with the petitioner and do not want to continue with the criminal proceedings against petitioner/accused. Therefore, he expressed his desire not to proceed with criminal proceedings against accused-petitioner. 3. He further deposed that he being victim, has also compromised the matter with the petitioner and do not want to continue with the criminal proceedings against petitioner/accused. 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. 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. 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. 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/respondent No. 2 and victim respondent No. 3 have also appeared in person in this Court and their statements, as discussed in para 2 supra, have also been recorded in this Court, which does not disclose 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. They have also expressed no objection, in compounding the offence, rather they have 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 statements of respondent No. 2-complainant and respondent No. 3/victim, recorded on oath in this Court, probability of conviction of petitioner/accused is too remote. 9. 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. 89 of 2015, dated 23.7.2015, registered under Sections 279 and 337 IPC at Police Station, Jawalamukhi, 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.