Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 151 (HP)

Amit Kumar v. State Of H. P.

2020-02-12

VIVEK SINGH THAKUR

body2020
JUDGMENT Vivek Singh Thakur, J. (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, on the basis of compromise arrived at between parties, for quashing of FIR No.364 of 2019, dated 18.10.2019, under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code (herein after referred to as IPC) and Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act (herein after referred to as MV Act), registered at Police Station Una Sadar, District Una, H.P. 2. Petitioner Amit Kumar and respondents No.4 and 5, Ravinder Kumar and Sangeeta Kumari, respectively, are present in person and are duly identified by their respective counsels. Their statements on oath have also been recorded. 3. Respondent No.4 in his statement has deposed that he is complainant in the present case and FIR was lodged immediately after the accident as the driver of car bearing No.PB-21F-3701 had not stopped on the spot after hitting his scooty, he alongwith his wife and children was traveling on the scooty and all of them had fallen on the road, and later on, it has come in their knowledge that the petitioner, who was driving the car at the relevant point of time, was in the relation of their villager and after reporting the matter to the police, the petitioner had approached them and had explained that on the spot road condition was bad and he did not hear the sound of hitting the scooty by the car and thought that the sound was on account of bad condition of the road and thus he had not stopped his car. He has further deposed that the petitioner had also explained to them that he was not having any intention to hit the scooty and run from the spot and had it been in his knowledge that car had hit the scooty, he would have definitely stopped his car on the spot. Respondent No.4 has also stated that the petitioner was known to his family by face and on verification, it was found that he is otherwise a good person and pursuing his studies and wants to go to abroad for pursuing further studies after completion of his M.Sc. Respondent No.4 has also stated that the petitioner was known to his family by face and on verification, it was found that he is otherwise a good person and pursuing his studies and wants to go to abroad for pursuing further studies after completion of his M.Sc. in Chemistry and believing the explanation rendered by the petitioner, they are of the opinion that the accident did not occur on account of rash and negligent driving of the petitioner but because of the bad condition of the road and keeping in view this fact and also considering the career of the petitioner, they had decided not to pursue criminal case against the petitioner and they have entered into compromise with the petitioner, which is annexed as Annexure P-2 and he has signed the compromise and deposed in the Court out of his free will, consent and without any external pressure, coercion or threat of any kind. 4. Respondent No. 5 Sangeeta Kumari, in her statement recorded on oath have endorsed the compromise to be true and correct and has signed the compromise Annexure P-2 and deposed in the Court out of her free will, consent and without any pressure, coercion or threat or any kind. 5. Petitioner Amit Kumar, in addition to endorsing the statement of complainant-respondent No.4, has also undertaken to be more careful in future to avoid harm to anybody. 6. Respondents No.1 to 3-State has filed reply and has objected the quashing of FIR on the ground that the case is not private in nature and the petitioner 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. 7. It is apt to record herein that a three Judges Bench of the Apex Court in Gian Singh Vs. It is apt to record herein that a three Judges Bench of the Apex Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Others 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. 8. The Apex Court in case Narinder Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab and Others reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 and also in State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and Others (2019) 5 SCC 688 has summed 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. 9. No doubt Section 279 IPC is not compoundable under Section 320 Cr. 9. No doubt Section 279 IPC is not compoundable under Section 320 Cr. P.C. However, as explained by Honble Supreme Court in Gian Singhs, Narinder Singhs and Laxmi Narayans 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, if it is 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. 10. In present case, complainant/respondent No.4 as well as respondent No.5, in their statements, as discussed supra, have also been recorded in this Court, wherein they have expressed their desire to close the proceedings against petitioner. 11. In Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab, (2008) 4 SCC 582 , the Honble Supreme Court emphasized and advised that in the matter of compromise in criminal proceedings, keeping in view of nature of this case, to save the time of the Court for utilizing to decide more effective and meaningful litigation, a commonsense approach, based on ground realities and bereft of the technicalities of law, should be applied. 12. 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 statements of respondents No. 4 and 5, recorded on oath in this Court, probability of conviction is too remote. 13. 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. 364 of 2019, dated 18.10.2019, registered at Police Station, Una Sadar, District Una, H.P. is quashed and consequently, criminal proceeding, if any, pending in the Court in pursuant thereto also stands quashed. 14. Petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so also pending applications, if any.