Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 759 (HP)

Kuljit Singh v. State Of Himachal Pradesh

2018-04-26

DHARAM CHAND CHAUDHARY

body2018
JUDGMENT Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J —The petitioner is an accused in FIR No.307 of 2009, dated 05.12.2009, registered against him at the instance of complainant Duni Chand, respondent No.2 herein, under Sections 279 & 337 of the Indian Penal Code, in Police Station, Indora, Distt. Kangra, H.P. 2. The allegation against the petitioner, in a nut shell, are that on 05.12.2009, the complainant was little ahead of the barrier at Indora in District Kangra. He was going towards Jassur and he noticed the tractor driven by accused-petitioner coming there. He signalled the accusedpetitioner to give him lift in the tractor. The accusedpetitioner though stopped the tractor, however, drove the same in a negligent manner without noticing behind that the complainant has boarded the tractor or not and as a result thereof, the complainant fell down and tractor crossed over his legs. As a result thereof, he received injury on his leg and the FIR (Annexure C-1) came to be registered against the accused-petitioner. 3. Learned Additional Advocate General has placed on record the status report, perusal whereof reveals that on completion of the investigation police has filed the challan in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Indora, District Kangra, H.P. The case is now fixed for framing charge on 28.04.2018. 4. Respondent No.2, the injured, is present in person. He has compromised the matter with the accusedpetitioner and as such, now is no more interested to prosecute him any further in this case. His statement and also that of the accused-petitioner, who is also present in person, to this effect have been recorded separately. The compromise deed (Annexure C-3) has also been placed on record of this petition. 5. It is seen that an offence punishable under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code, is not compoundable under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The apex Court, however, in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and Another , (2012) 10 SCC 303 , has held that the High Court in exercise of inherent powers vested in it under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, may quash FIR/criminal proceedings in a case where the offence allegedly committed by the accused is not compoundable, however, the victim and accused have settled the dispute amicably. The powers vested in the Court, however, should be exercised sparingly and only in appropriate cases having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such other transactions of like nature including matrimonial or the case relating to dowry etc., in which the wrong basically is done to the victim. This judgment further reveals that the compounding of offence in a case of serious nature like rape, dacoity and corruption etc., having serious impact in the society, is not permissible 6. The Punjab and Haryana High Court in Karamvir Singh vs. State of Punjab and Another, Cr. Misc. No.M-1586 of 2013 (O&M) , decided on 13.09.2013, after placing reliance on Full Bench judgment of the same High Court in Kulwinder Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab , (2007) 3 RCR(Cri) 1052 and also that of Apex Court in Gian Singh''s case supra, has allowed the compounding of offence in a case punishable under Sections 279, 337 & 338 of the Indian Penal Code in the similar circumstances with the observation that since the parties have arrived at a compromise and decided to live in peace, no useful purpose would be served by allowing the proceedings to continue. 7. The Apex Court in Narinder Singh and others versus State of Punjab and another , (2014) 6 SCC 466 , has even quashed the FIR in a case under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code with the following observations: "We have gone through the FIR as well which was recorded on the basis of statement of the complainant/victim. It gives an indication that the complainant was attacked allegedly by the accused persons because of some previous dispute between the parties, though nature of dispute etc. is not stated in detail. However, a very pertinent statement appears on record viz., "respectable persons have been trying for a compromise up till now, which could not be finalized". This becomes an important aspect. It appears that there have been some disputes which led to the aforesaid purported attack by the accused on the complaint. In this context when we find that the elder of the village, including Sarpanch, intervened in the matter and the parties have not only buried their hatchet but have decided to live peacefully in future, this becomes an important consideration. The evidence is yet to be led in the Court. It has not even started. In this context when we find that the elder of the village, including Sarpanch, intervened in the matter and the parties have not only buried their hatchet but have decided to live peacefully in future, this becomes an important consideration. The evidence is yet to be led in the Court. It has not even started. In view of compromise between parties, there is a minimal chance of the witnesses coming forward in support of the prosecution case. Even though nature of injuries can still be established by producing the doctor as witness who conducted medical examination, it may become difficult to prove as to who caused these injuries. The chance of conviction, therefore, appear to be remote. It would, therefore, be unnecessary to drag these proceedings. We, taking all these factors into consideration cumulatively, are of the opinion that the compromise between the parties be accepted and the criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No.121 dated 14.7.2010 registered with Police Station LOPOKE, District Amritsar Rural be quashed. We order accordingly." 8. Now coming to the case in hand, the complainant-respondent No.2 is now no more interested to prosecute the pending criminal case against the accusedpetitioner any further. The accused-petitioner and the complainant, are present in person. Their statements have been recorded separately. The proceedings in the criminal case pending against the accused-petitioner are presently at its initial stage because the charge has not yet been framed. In view of the complainant-injured, as he has settled the matter with the accused-petitioner amicably, it is imperative that he is not going to support the prosecution case while in the witness-box. Therefore, even if the trial is allowed to continue, the chances of conviction of the accused-petitioner will be bleak. On the other hand, the accused-petitioner has all repentance for this accident. He has undertaken to drive the vehicle in future with all care and caution. No doubt, learned Additional Advocate General has opposed the prayer for quashing the FIR and consequential criminal proceedings against the accused-petitioner, however, there is no likelihood of his conviction. Therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing the criminal proceedings against the accused-petitioner to continue and to do so rather would amount to abuse of the process of law. 9. The petition, as such, is allowed. Consequently, FIR No.307 of 2009, dated 05.12.2009, registered against the accused-petitioner, in Police Station, Indora, Distt. Therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing the criminal proceedings against the accused-petitioner to continue and to do so rather would amount to abuse of the process of law. 9. The petition, as such, is allowed. Consequently, FIR No.307 of 2009, dated 05.12.2009, registered against the accused-petitioner, in Police Station, Indora, Distt. Kangra, H.P. and also the consequential criminal proceedings pending disposal in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Indora, Distt. Kangra, shall stand quashed. The petition is accordingly disposed of. An authenticated copy of this judgment be sent to learned trial Court for record/compliance.