Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 252 (HP)

Mayank v. State of H. P.

2021-04-20

VIVEK SINGH THAKUR

body2021
JUDGMENT : VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, J. 1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the petitioners for quashing of FIR No. 127 of 2019 dated 22.10.2019, registered at Police Station, Sunder Nagar BSL Colony, District Mandi, H.P., under Sections 304A, 279 and 337 of IPC and consequential proceedings, if any. 2. Petitioner as well as respondents No.2 and 3 were present in the Court on 7.4.2021 and have been identified as such by their respective counsel(s). 3. Respondent No. 3/complainant Kushal Thakur in his statement has deposed that, on the date of accident, he along with Mayank (petitioner) and Avinash was riding a bike of Navneet and besides that some other students were also riding two other two wheelers, i.e. Bike and Scooty, which were also accompanying them and when they reached on National Highway No. 21 near Dhanotu, a vehicle came from opposite side with piercing flash lights and because of that Mayank felt uncomfortable and resultantly Bike skidded of the road and they all three, i.e. he, Mayank and Avinash, received injuries and Avinash had succumbed to the injuries, however, Mayank was not rash and negligent in driving and that portion of FIR was not told by him to the Police and it appears that by presuming the rash and negligent driving of Mayank, police officials had added those lines and his statement was recorded in the hospital and at the time of recording of his statement, he was not comfortable because of injuries received by him and also on account of death of Avinash and he is of the firm opinion that accident had not taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of Mayank, but on account of piercing flash lights of vehicle coming from opposite side. He has further stated that his deposition in the Court is out of his free will, consent and also without any external pressure, coercion or threat of any kind. 4. He has further stated that his deposition in the Court is out of his free will, consent and also without any external pressure, coercion or threat of any kind. 4. Respondent No. 2 Om Prakash, father of deceased Avinash, in his statement has deposed that he was not present on the spot and also does not know that who was driving the Motor Bike involved in the accident and the cause of accident and manner in which it had occurred is not in his knowledge, however, it is a matter of fact that his son was riding the bike along with Mayank and Kushal Thakur on the date of accident and his son had expired in the accident, details of cause whereof is not known to him and because of lack of knowledge about the cause of accident, he does not intend to proceed against Mayank, therefore, he and his wife have entered into compromise with petitioner Mayank. He has endorsed his and his wife’s signatures on the compromise and has further stated that he has entered into and signed the compromise out of his free will, consent, and also without any external pressure, coercion or threat of any kind. 5. Petitioner in his statement has deposed that on the date of accident he was driving Bike and when they reached on National Highway No. 21 near Dhanotu, a vehicle came from opposite side with piercing flash lights and because of that he was not able to see and he tried to stop the Bike and resultantly Bike skidded off the road and they all three, i.e. he, Kushal Thakur and Avinash received injuries and Avinash had succumbed to the injuries. He has further deposed that he was not rash and negligent in driving the bike. 6. It is contended on behalf of respondent-State that petitioner/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. 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 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. 9. 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. 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. 10. No doubt Sections 279 and 304A IPC are 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 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. 11. 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. 12. Offence in question, for material on record, does 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. Further considering statement of complainant recorded on oath in the Court, it is apparent that no fruitful purpose is going to be served by continuing criminal proceedings in reference. 13. Keeping in view the ratio of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court and considering facts of case in its entirety, I am of considered view that it is a fit case for allowing the petition. Therefore, matter is permitted to be compounded. 13. Keeping in view the ratio of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court and considering facts of case in its entirety, I am of considered view that it is a fit case for allowing the petition. Therefore, matter is permitted to be compounded. Consequently, FIR No. 127 of 2019, dated 22.10.2019, registered at Police Station Sunder Nagar BSL Colony, District Mandi, H.P., is quashed. Consequent to quashing of FIR No. 127 of 2019, criminal proceedings, arising consequent thereto, pending before JMIC-II Sundernagar, Distrcit Mandi, bearing registration No. 47/2020, titled State Vs. Mayank, also stand quashed. 14. Petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so also pending applications, if any. Copy Dasti.