Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2266 (HP)

Jagdish Kumar v. State Of H P And Other

2018-12-19

VIVEK SINGH THAKUR

body2018
JUDGMENT Vivek Singh Thakur, J. - Present petition has been filed for quashing of FIR No. 8 of 2018 dated 11.1.2018 registered under Sections 336, 337 and 338 of Indian Penal Code at P.S. Sadar Shimla, District Shimla H.P., and criminal proceedings initiated in pursuance thereto, on the basis of compromise, arrived at between petitioner-accused and complainantrespondent No. 3. 2. Petitioner/Accused and respondent No. 3- complainant are present in Court. Statement of complainant on oath has also been recorded. 3. In the present case, complainant/respondent No.3, as stated by him in his separate statement, has lodged the FIR on account of misunderstanding and now the matter stands compromised. 4. Complainant (Respondent No.3), in his deposition has endorsed the compromise and has prayed for quashing the FIR and proceedings initiated against petitioner/accused. In his statement he has stated that on the day of incident, there was one bus which was having low battery and therefore, that battery was connected with the battery of another bus and petitioner/accused was asked by him to ignite the switch of the bus having low battery, but at that time neither he nor the petitioner was having knowledge that bus with low battery had been parked in gear. He has stated that on ignition of starting switch of bus, as it was in gear, had jumped suddenly for which petitioner/accused cannot be said to be rash and negligent in any manner and at that time, he was under impression that petitioner was having knowledge about the fact that bus was parked in gear, therefore, he felt that he had acted negligently and had lodged FIR accordingly. He has further stated that but now he thinks that there was no rash and negligent act on the part of petitioner/accused and in this incident, only petitioner/accused was injured and there was no other loss. Therefore, he has prayed for disposal of present petition in terms of compromise. He has also stated that compromise so arrived at is out of his free will and consent and without any threat, pressure or coercion. 5. 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.PC. 6. xxx xxx xxx 7. 5. 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.PC. 6. xxx xxx xxx 7. 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 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. 8. The Apex Court, in case Narinder Singh and Ors. Vs. 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. 9. 9. No doubt Section 336 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 CrPC is not inhibited by the provisions of Section 320 CrPC and FIR as well as criminal proceedings can be quashed by exercising inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC, if 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. 10. In present case, complaint has been lodged on account of misunderstanding and in this incident,the petitioner himself only was injured and there was no other loss and as per complainant, there was no rash and negligent act on the part of petitioner as the offence, allegedly committed by the petitioner, was perpetrated on his asking. In these facts and circumstances, I find that it is a fit case to exercise power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and further even otherwise if criminal proceedings are allowed to continue, no fruitful purpose is going to be served. 11. Further, offence in question does not fall in the category of offences prohibited for compounding in terms of the pronouncements of the Apex Court by exercising power under Section 482 of the CrPC. 12. Keeping in view nature and gravity of offence and 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.8 of 2018, dated 11.1.2018, registered under Sections 336. 337 and 338 IPC at Police Station, Sadar Shimla, District Shimla, H.P. is quashed. Consequent to quashing of FIR, criminal proceedings initiated against accused in pursuance thereto, in case No. 250 of 2018 titled State vs. jagdish Kumar pending before learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No.3, Shimla are also quashed. 13. Petition stands disposed of in above terms.