Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 146 (HP)

Manohar Lal v. State Of H. P.

2020-01-31

JYOTSNA REWAL DUA

body2020
JUDGMENT Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Vacation J. (oral). - Learned Counsel for the petitioner is permitted to carry out correction in the memo of parties. 2. By means of the instant petition preferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , a prayer has been made for quashing of FIR No. 0231, dated 30.08.2018, registered under Section 279 and 337 of Indian Penal Code at Police Station Balh, District Mandi, H.P, and consequential proceedings arising therefrom. 3. The gist of the case of the petitioner is that FIR in question was lodged by respondent No.3 Paras Ram, alleging that on 30.08.2018, while he was standing outside his shop at Troh Chowk, at about 3.45 P.M., the petitioner while driving a Bus bearing No. HP-61- 3075, in rash and negligent manner hit the Motorcycle bearing No. HP-33C-5597, resultantly, causing injuries to respondents No. 4 & 5, which led to registration of FIR in question. Respondent No.5 Lalit Kumar is minor son of respondent No.4 Tulsi Ram. It has been submitted that parties have now amicably settled their disputes and a compromise deed has been executed between the parties in this regard on 20.11.2018. This compromise deed has been placed on record at Annexure P-2. 4. All the parties, including respondent No. 5 represented through his father, who are present in Court and have been identified as such by their learned counsels, have submitted that they have amicably resolved their disputes inter se them and do not want to pursue the matter any further. Therefore it has been prayed that the FIR in question and the resultant proceedings be quashed and set aside. 5. It is stated by the parties present in Court that they have effected the compromise dated 20.11.2018 (Annexure P-2) in respect of incident in question freely without any pressure or influence. It is further stated by them that they are now enjoying cordial relations amongst themselves and are not interested to pursue the case further. These averments are reiterated by learned counsel for the parties. 6. Learned Additional Advocate General has fairly submitted that he has no objection in case the relief prayed for in the petition is allowed in view of the compromise effected between the parties. 7. These averments are reiterated by learned counsel for the parties. 6. Learned Additional Advocate General has fairly submitted that he has no objection in case the relief prayed for in the petition is allowed in view of the compromise effected between the parties. 7. The law laid down in respect of exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing or for refusing to quash the FIR and resultant proceedings on the basis of compromise effected by the parties laid down in (2012) 10 SCC 303 titled Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab; (2014) 6 SCC 466 titled Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab; (2017) 9 SCC 641 titled as Parbatbhai Aahir vs. State of Gujarat, has been noticed again by Honble Apex Court in (2019) 5 SCC 688 , titled as State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan with following observations:- '15 . Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of this Court on the point, referred to hereinabove, it is observed and held as under: 15.1 That the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves; 15.2. Such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society; 15.3 Similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender; 15.4 Offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act etc. would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal proceedings for the offence under Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act etc. would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal proceedings for the offence under Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act etc. which have a serious impact on the society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code, on the ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst themselves. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to framing the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc. However, such an exercise by the High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and the charge sheet is filed/charge is framed and/or during the trial. Such exercise is not permissible when the matter is still under investigation. However, such an exercise by the High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and the charge sheet is filed/charge is framed and/or during the trial. Such exercise is not permissible when the matter is still under investigation. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in paragraphs 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in the case of Narinder Singh (supra) should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove; 15.5 While exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non-compoundable offences, which are private in nature and do not have a serious impart on society, on the ground that there is a settlement/compromise between the victim and the offender, the High Court is required to consider the antecedents of the accused; the conduct of the accused, namely, whether the accused was absconding and why he was absconding, how he had managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise etc.' Applying the above guidelines to the instant case, I am of the considered view that the offences for which, the petitioner has been made accused in FIR in question, cannot be stricto-sensu said to be the offences against the State or involving social impact. In view of the amicable settlement arrived at between the parties, no fruitful purpose will be served in continuing the proceedings in question; the present case does not fall within the exceptions carved out by the Honble Apex Court when amicable settlement arrived at between the parties cannot be acted upon for quashing the FIR and the consequent proceedings; the possibility of conviction in such circumstances would be very bleak/remote. The continuation of the proceedings will be to the great detriment of the petitioner causing him unnecessary harassment and injustice. When the complainants do not want to hold the accused person responsible, then quashing of such FIR would certainly be in the interest of justice. Consequently, in view of the above, the present petition is allowed and FIR No. 0231, dated 30.08.2018, registered under Section 279 and 337 of Indian Penal Code at Police Station Balh, District Mandi, H.P, and consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed and set aside. The petition stands disposed of accordingly, so also pending application(s) if any. Copy dasti .