Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 206 (HP)

Ghan Shyam v. State Of H. P.

2019-02-28

VIVEK SINGH THAKUR

body2019
JUDGMENT Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, J. (Oral) - Present petition has been filed for quashing of FIR No. 119 of 2018 dated 13.5.2018 registered under Sections 279, 337, 338 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 181 and 187 of the Motor Vehicle Act at P.S. Boileauganj, Shimla-5 H.P., and criminal proceedings initiated in pursuance thereto, on the basis of compromise, arrived at between petitioner-accused and complainant-respondent No. 2. 2. Petitioner/accused and respondent No. 2- complainant are present in Court, who are duly identified by their respective counsel. Their statements on oath have also been recorded. 3. Respondent No. 2, complainant, present in person in Court today, endorses compromise, (Annexure P- 3) and in her statement, recorded on oath in this Court, has reiterated compromise between her and petitioner/accused and has deposed that on the day of accident, motorcycle had hit her from the side when she was coming from the house of her relations after attending the marriage ceremony. She has stated that she had not been knowing the cause of accident or identity of the person or vehicle involved in the accident. She has also stated that cause of accident was also not in her knowledge and till date, she is not sure that accident had taken place with the motorcycle being driven by petitioner and his name and address might have been disclosed to the police by persons gathered on the spot. She has further stated that she does not know how the police has traced and identified the petitioner as a person involved in the accident and also does not know the reason of accident and on this ground, she has compromised the matter with petitioner and sought permission to compound the case by quashing the FIR lodged by her and proceedings initiated in pursuant thereto. 4. The petitioner/accused also, in his statement, by endorsing the deposition of respondent No.2, has stated that accident has not been taken place on account of rash or negligent driving on his part and for that reason, the complainant/respondent No.2 has agreed to compromise the matter and prayed for disposal of present petition in terms of compromise. 5. 4. The petitioner/accused also, in his statement, by endorsing the deposition of respondent No.2, has stated that accident has not been taken place on account of rash or negligent driving on his part and for that reason, the complainant/respondent No.2 has agreed to compromise the matter and prayed for disposal of present petition in terms of compromise. 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. 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. 7. 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. 7. 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. 8. No doubt Section 279 of IPC 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 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. 9. In present case, complainant and accused have appeared and by endorsing the compromise stated that complainant agreed for not to pursue the proceedings initiated against the petitioner any further. Since both the parties have compromised the matter, 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. 10 Further, offences in question do 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. 10 Further, offences in question do 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. 11 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.119 of 2018 dated 13.5.2018, registered under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 181 and 187 of Motor Vehicles Act at Police Station, Boileauganj, Shimla-5 H.P. is quashed. Consequent to quashing of FIR, criminal proceedings, initiated against accused in pursuance thereto, before learned Judicial Magistrate 1 st Class, Shimla are also quashed. 12. Petition stands disposed of in above terms. Dasti copy on usual terms.