Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 914 (HP)

Sher Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2025-05-05

VIRENDER SINGH

body2025
JUDGMENT : Virender Singh, J. The above-titled petitions are being disposed of by this common order, as, both the petitions have been filed, in the same FIR, i.e. FIR No.43/2018, dated 19.08.2018 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘FIR in question’), registered under Sections 279 and 337 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’), with Police Station West, Shimla, H.P. 2. Brief facts, leading to the filing of the above petitions, as per the record, annexed with the petitions, may be summed up, as under:- 2.1. Complainant-Rajesh Kumar (respondent No.2 in CrMMO No.229 of 2025) had made a statement, under Section 154 of CrPC, before the Investigating Officer, disclosing therein that on 19.02.2018, he, along with his sister-Anjana Kumari (respondent No.3 in CrMMO No.229 of 2025), her daughter Raksha, Madan Kumar and Ram Dass, was on their way to Rippon Hospital, in a vehicle, bearing No.HP-35-1595, driven by him. 2.2. At about 08:23 am, when, they reached near power house at NH-205, then, vehicle No.HP93-0372 (bus, belonging to HRTC), being driven by its driver, in rash and negligent manner, hit the car, driven by the complainant, from backside. Resultantly, the car, driven by the complainant, struck against bus, bearing No.HP69-A-2036, due to which, complainant, as well as, his sister sustained injuries. 2.3. On the basis of above facts, police registered the FIR in question. After registration of the FIR, police had conducted the investigation. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against accused Sher Singh (petitioner), for the commission of offence, punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC and the same was assigned to the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court’). 2.4. On the basis of the final report, under Section 173(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the ‘CrPC’), as well as, on the basis of the documents, annexed with the final report, the learned trial Court had framed the charges, under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC, against accused Sher Singh (petitioner). When, charges were put to him, he had pleaded not guilty and subsequently, prosecution was directed to adduce evidence. When, charges were put to him, he had pleaded not guilty and subsequently, prosecution was directed to adduce evidence. Consequently, prosecution had examined, as many as, 13 witnesses and thereafter, the entire incriminating evidence was put to accused Sher Singh (petitioner), in the statement, recorded under Section 313 of CrPC, to which, he denied all the entire prosecution evidence. 2.5. The learned trial Court, after hearing learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, as well as, learned counsel, appearing for accused Sher Singh (petitioner), had convicted the petitioner, for the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC, vide judgment of conviction dated 17.02.2024 and vide order of sentence dated 21.02.2024, accused Sher Singh (petitioner) was sentenced, as under:- Sr. No. Section under which convicted Sentence of imprisonment and fine 1. 279 of IPC Simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. 2. 337 of IPC Simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days and to pay fine of Rs.500/-. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 5 days. 2.6. Learned trial Court had also ordered that both the sentences shall run concurrently. 3. Aggrieved from the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, as referred to above, accused Sher Singh (petitioner) had preferred Criminal Appeal No.22-S/10 of 2024, titled as ‘Sher Singh Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh’, before the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Appellate Court’). However, the said appeal was dismissed, vide judgment dated 31.05.2024. 4. Dissatisfied with the said judgment, passed by the learned Appellate Court, Criminal Revision No.424 of 2024 has been filed, before this Court, assailing the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, passed by the learned trial Court, as upheld by the learned Appellate Court. 5. During the pendency of the said Criminal Revision Petition, CrMMO No.229 of 2025 has been filed, before this Court, on the ground that during the pendency of the revision petition, matter has been compromised, between accused Sher Singh (petitioner), complainant and his sister, namely Anjana Kumari (injured). 6. 5. During the pendency of the said Criminal Revision Petition, CrMMO No.229 of 2025 has been filed, before this Court, on the ground that during the pendency of the revision petition, matter has been compromised, between accused Sher Singh (petitioner), complainant and his sister, namely Anjana Kumari (injured). 6. On the basis of the compromise, arrived at between the parties to the present lis, a prayer has been made to quash the FIR in question, as well as, to set aside the judgment of conviction dated 17.02.2024 and order of sentence dated 21.02.2024, passed by the learned trial Court, as upheld by the learned Appellate Court, vide judgment dated 31.05.2024. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence has not attained finality yet. 7. When, put to notice, complainant-Rajesh Kumar (respondent No.2 in CrMMO No.229 of 2025) and his sister Anjana Kumari (respondent No.3 in CrMMO No.229 of 2025) have put appearance, before this Court and stated the factual position and the manner, in which, complainant-Rajesh Kumar (respondent No.2 in CrMMO No.229 of 2025) had lodged the FIR in question and the manner, in which, the police had investigated the case and submitted the charge-sheet, upon which, the learned trial Court had taken the cognizance and after framing of the charges, prosecution had led the evidence, so also, the factual position, with regard to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, as referred to above, as well as, filing of criminal appeal, before the learned Appellate Court, which has ultimately been dismissed. 8. In addition to this, respondents No.2 and 3 in CrMMO No.229 of 2025 have deposed that with the intervention of the respectables of the society, now, the matter has been compromised between them and the petitioner. The compromise is stated to have been reduced into writing and annexed with the petition as Annexure P-4. 9. Apart from this, respondents No.2 and 3 in CrMMO No.229 of 2025 have also deposed on oath, that they have no objection in case, the FIR in question is quashed, as well as, the judgment of conviction dated 17.02.2024 and order of sentence dated 21.02.2024, passed by the learned trial Court, as upheld by the learned Appellate Court, vide judgment dated 31.05.2024, are set aside, by acquitting the petitioner from the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC. 10. 10. Similar statement has also been made by petitioner-Sher Singh, on oath. 11. In this factual background, the material question, which arises for determination, before this Court, is as to whether the proceedings, as well as, judgment of conviction and order of sentence, as referred to above, can be quashed/set aside. In this regard, it is apt for this Court to reproduce paragraph 13 of the judgment in Ramawatar versus State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 966, passed by the three-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which reads, as under:-. “13. We, however, put a further caveat that the powers under Article 142 or under Section 482 Cr.P.C., are exercisable in post-conviction matters only where an appeal is pending before one or the other Judicial forum. This is on the premise that an order of conviction does not attain finality till the accused has exhausted his/her legal remedies and the finality is sub-judice before an appellate court. The pendency of legal proceedings, be that may before the final Court, is sine-qua-non to involve the superior court's plenary powers to do complete justice. Conversely, where a settlement has ensued post the attainment of all legal remedies, the annulment of proceedings on the basis of a compromise would be impermissible. Such an embargo is necessitated to prevent the accused from gaining an indefinite leverage, for such a settlement/compromise will always be loaded with lurking suspicion about its bona fide. We have already clarified that the purpose of these extra-ordinary powers is not to incentivise any hollow-hearted agreements between the accused and the victim but to do complete justice by effecting genuine settlement(s).” (Self-emphasis supplied) 12. In view of the discussions, made hereinabove, there is no hesitation for this Court to allow CrMMO No.229 of 2025, by quashing FIR No.43/2018, dated 19.08.2018, registered under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC, with Police Station West, Shimla, H.P., as well as, to allow Cr. Revision No.424 of 2024, by setting aside the judgment of conviction dated 17.02.2024 and order of sentence dated 21.02.2024, passed by the learned trial Court, as upheld by the learned Appellate Court, vide judgment dated 31.05.2024. 13. Revision No.424 of 2024, by setting aside the judgment of conviction dated 17.02.2024 and order of sentence dated 21.02.2024, passed by the learned trial Court, as upheld by the learned Appellate Court, vide judgment dated 31.05.2024. 13. Moreover, this Court is satisfied with the genuineness of the compromise, Annexure P-4, entered into between the parties, and when, the parties have buried all their disputes, by compromising the matter, then, their intention to settle the matter should be honoured by this Court. 14. Considering all these facts, both the above- titled petitions are allowed. FIR No.43/2018, dated 19.08.2018, registered under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC, with Police Station West, Shimla, H.P., is quashed and the judgment of conviction dated 17.02.2024 and order of sentence dated 21.02.2024, passed by the learned trial Court, as upheld by the learned Appellate Court, vide judgment dated 31.05.2024 are set aside, and the petitioner is acquitted from the offence, punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC. His personal and surety bonds are discharged. 15. The Compromise Deed, Annexure P-4, and the statements of the parties, shall form part of the judgment. 16. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly.