Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 178 (HP)

Surjeet Kumar. v. State Of Himachal Pradesh.

2019-02-12

VIVEK SINGH THAKUR

body2019
JUDGMENT Vivek Singh Thakur, Vacation Judge (Oral) - 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 arrived at between him and complainant-respondent No. 2, for quashing FIR No. 0041 of 2018, dated 4.4.2018, under Sections 279, 337, 338 of the Indian Penal Code (herein after referred to as IPC) read with Section 181 of MV Act , registered at Police Station Chowari, District Chamba, H.P., and criminal proceedings initiated in pursuance thereto. 2. Respondent No. 2-complainant, Sh. Naresh Kumar is present in the Court today and endorsed compromise, in his statement recorded on oath in this Court. He deposed that at the time of accident, he was sitting in the Specio vehicle bearing No. H.P.-01-H-1093 on the rear seat, with which Scooty bearing No. H.P.-47-7476 had collided. Immediately after the accident rider and pillion rider of the Scooty were taken to the hospital. They were not known to him and he was not knowing their names also, however, when they were being taken to hospital, their names came to be known to the other persons gathered there, on the basis of which he lodged FIR, stating therein that Scooty was being driven by petitioner Surjeet Kumar. Whereas, after having well acquaintance with their names and their faces, it is his impression that Scooty was being driven by Rohit Kumar, respondent No. 3 and further that at the time of recording of FIR, on arrival of Police, it was his impression that in case, case was not registered against the Scooty driver, case would be registered against the vehicle driver, in which he was transporting goods, but at that time also and as of now also, he is not aware about the exact reason of the accident and he cannot say that the accident had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of the Scooty driver. However, in the said accident, no major loss to the vehicle occupied by him or its occupants or its goods was caused and now the petitioner has been selected in the Indian Army, therefore, considering the entire episode and the role of the petitioner, he agreed to compromise the matter and accompanied the petitioner today to this Court for quashing of the FIR, as the petiotners has to submit his character certificate by tomorrow to the concerned authority. Therefore, he expressed his desire not to proceed with criminal proceedings against accused-petitioner. 4. Respondent No. 3, Rohit Kumar, who was the driver of the Scooty at the time of accident, is also present today in the Court and his statement has also been recorded on oath, wherein he deposed that he was driving the Scooty on the date of accident and unfortunately he lost control of the Scooty and struck the same with the vehicle HP-01-H-1093. In the said accident, he suffered injuries, for which petitioner is/was not responsible in any manner, as he was sitting with him as a pilling rider. He further deposed that he has been cited as a witness in the case and petitioner is accused as has been shown as driver of the Scooty and it has happened on account of misinformation supplied to the complainant by the persons gathered on the spot. He expressed his no objection in quashing the FIR. 4. It is contended on behalf of respondent No. 1-State that petitioner/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. 5. 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. 6. 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. 7. No doubt Sections 279 is not compoundable under Section 320 Cr. P.C. However, as explained by Honble Supreme Court in Gian Singhs and Narinder Singhs 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. 8. 8. 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. 9. 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. 10. Keeping in view the ratio of law laid down by the Honble 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. 0041 of 2018, dated 4.4.2018, registered under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC read with Section 181 of MV Act at Police Station, Chowari, District Chamba, H.P. is quashed. Consequent to quashing of FIR, criminal proceedings, if any, pending in any Court, also stands quashed. 11. Petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Copy Dasti.