Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 120 (HP)

Asiff Khan v. State Of H. P. & Others

2021-03-06

VIVEK SINGH THAKUR

body2021
JUDGMENT Vivek Singh Thakur, J. - This petition has been preferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 0015, dated 12.02.2019 registered under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter in short 'IPC') at Police Station Bharari, District Bilaspur HP and quashing of proceedings initiated in pursuant thereto pending in the concerned Court. 2. Respondent No.2 Rajeev is complainant, who is present in Court today and vide separate statement on oath, he has stated that he is complainant in the present case and on the day of incident, he was travelling along with petitioner, respondents No. 3 and 4 and other persons to attend the marriage function of his nephew (Bhanja) Razak and petitioner had overtaken a car, but, immediately, thereafter their car met with an accident causing injuries to occupants of car particularly respondents No. 3 and 4 but he did not receive any injury. He has further stated that at that time, it was reported to police that accident had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of petitioner, however, later on they recollected the events and discussed the matter with other occupants of car and passers-by and thereafter, they have realized that accident had not taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of petitioner, but, for the reason that shaft of car was broken causing the accident and now he is of the considered view that accident did not take place on account of rash and negligent driving of petitioner and therefore, he has compromised the matter with petitioner out of his free will, consent and also without any kind of threat, coercion or pressure etc. 3. The petitioner along with other occupants of car i.e. respondents No. 3 and 4, who had received the injuries in accident, are also present in Court and vide their separate statements, they have endorsed the statement of complainant as true and correct and stated that they have entered into compromise out of their free will, consent and also without any kind of threat, coercion or pressure etc. 4. Quashing of FIR in present petition has been prayed on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties and said compromise has been placed on record, which is duly signed by parties. All of them have endorsed the compromise. 5. 4. Quashing of FIR in present petition has been prayed on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties and said compromise has been placed on record, which is duly signed by parties. All of them have endorsed the compromise. 5. In reply, filed on behalf of respondent/State, it is contended 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.P.C. 6. Three Judges Bench of the Apex Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Ors., (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. 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 Parbatbhai Aahir alias Parbathbhai Bhimsinghbhai Karmur and others vs. State of Gujarat and another, (2017) 9 SCC 641 summarizing the broad principles regarding inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has recognized that these powers are not inhibited by provisions of Section 320 Cr.P.C. 8. The Apex Court in case Narinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and others, (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.P.C. However, as explained by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh's, Narinder Singh's Parbatbhai Aahir's and Laxmi Narayan's 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. 10. In Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab, (2008) 4 SCC 582 the Hon'ble 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. 11. 11. Keeping in view the statement of the complainant as well as other injured persons, who have appeared in person and stated on oath that petitioner/accused was not rash and negligent in driving the car, I find that it is a fit case to exercise power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and further even otherwise, in view of statement of the complainant, if criminal proceedings are allowed to continue, no fruitful purpose is going to be served. 12. 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 Cr.P.C. 13. 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. 15, dated 12.02.2019, registered against the petitioner/accused under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC at P.S. Bharari, District Bilaspur H.P. is quashed. Consequent to quashing of said FIR, criminal proceedings pending in the concerned Court are also quashed. 14. Petition stands disposed of in above terms, so also pending application, if any.