Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 55 (HP)

Ravi Sharma v. State of H. P.

2019-01-05

VIVEK SINGH THAKUR

body2019
JUDGMENT : Vivek Singh Thakur, J. Present petition has been filed for quashing of FIR No. 228 of 2018 dated 18.9.2018 registered under Sections 279 and 337 of Indian Penal Code at P.S. Sadar Nalagarh, District Solan 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 and respondent No.3/injured 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, and respondent No.3 injured, present in person in Court today, endorse compromise, (Annexure P-2) and in their statements, recorded on oath in this Court, have not only reiterated signing of the compromise by them and accused with free consent and will without any coercion and pressure but also deposed to the effect that complainant, who is working as mechanic, was present in his shop, in front of which the accident had occurred and he noticed the accident only after hearing the sound of collusion of truck with motorcycle being driven by victim/injured. Complainant has deposed that at that time, he was under impression that accident had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of truck driver and on the basis of this impression and information gathered at that time, he had lodged the complaint against the petitioner. Complainant has also stated that now the victim, who was driving the motorcycle, has compromised the matter with the petitioner and has pardoned him as petitioner has realized his guilt and at that time also, he had not run from the spot, but had taken the victim to hospital and therefore, he has no objection for compounding the case. The deposition of injured namely Ram Pal, is also to the same effect. 4. The petitioner/accused also, in his statement, by endorsing the deposition of respondents No.2 and 3, has stated that the accident had taken place on account of his mistake and he undertakes to be careful in future. He has also stated that at that time also, he had taken the injured to the hospital and now the matter stand compromised with the victim out of his free will and consent and also without any threat, coercion or pressure etc. and prayed for disposal of present petition in terms of compromise. 5. He has also stated that at that time also, he had taken the injured to the hospital and now the matter stand compromised with the victim out of his free will and consent and also without any threat, coercion or pressure etc. 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. 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 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. 9. In present case, though accident had occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of petitioner/accused, but at that time also, he had not run from the spot, but had taken the victim to hospital and now the matter stands settled between the victim and petitioner and petitioner, vide separate statement placed on record, undertakes to be careful in future. 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. 10. 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. 11. 10. 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. 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.228 of 2018 dated 18.9.2018, registered under Sections 279 and 337 IPC at Police Station, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. is quashed. Consequent to quashing of FIR, criminal proceedings initiated against accused in pursuance thereto, pending before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalagarh, District Solan are also quashed. 12. Petition stands disposed of in above terms.