Allowed

Pradeep Kumar and Anr. v. State of Hp

Himachal Pradesh HC3 Aug 2022CRMMO/417/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court of Himachal Pradesh quashed an FIR registered for offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 IPC and sections 181, 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Court held that despite the offences being non-compoundable, the inherent powers of the High Court allow quashing when the parties settle the dispute to secure ends of justice.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 73 of 2019 dated 12.11.2019 and consequential criminal proceedings were quashed.

Pradeep Kumar and Anr. Vs State of Hp — Property and Title | Himachal Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA ON THE 3^rd DAY OF AUGUST, 2022 BEFORE

¶2

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIVEK SINGH THAKUR CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION (MAIN) U/S 482 CRPC No. 417 OF 2022

¶3

BETWEEN:-

¶4

1. PRADEEP KUMAR AGED 26 YEARS, SON OF SH. KRISHAN LAL, VILLAGE BADGAYI, P.O. POSHANA, TEHSIL NIRMAND, P.S. BROW, DISTRICT KULLU,H.P.

¶5

2. DINESH KUMAR, AGED 31 YEARS SON OF SH. GEJAB RAM VILLAGE CHAKLOT, P.O. POSHNA, TEHSIL NIRMAND, P.S. BROW, DISTRICT KULLU, H.P.

¶6

(BY SH. DHEERAJ THAKUR, ADVOCATE)

¶7

PETITIONERS

¶8

AND

¶9

1 1. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH THROUGH

¶10

. SECRETARY HOME TO THE GOVERNMENT OF H.P.

¶11

SECRETARIAT, SHIMLA-2.

¶12

2 (MR. HEMANT VAID, ADDITIONAL

¶13

. ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR R-1)

¶14

2. RAKSHA DEVI, WIFE OF SH. AMAR SINGH VILLAGE KEDAS, P.O. GHATU, TEHSIL & P.S NIRMAND,DISTRICT KULLU, H.P.

¶15

3. KARAM SINGH SON OF SH. MOHAN LAL VILLAGE BAYAL, P.O. KOYAL, P.S BROW, DISTRICT KULLU, H.P.

¶16

4. SANJEEV KUMAR SON OF SH. MAAN SUKH VILLAGE BADGAI, P.O. POSHNA, TEHSIL NIRMAND, P.S BROW, DISTRICT KULLU, H.P.

¶17

RESPONDENTS

¶18

(SH. ANIRUDH SHARMA ADVOCATE FOR R-2 & 3)

¶19

whether approved for Reporting?

¶20

This petition coming on for presence of parties this day, the Court passed

¶21

the following:

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

The instant petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

¶24

(hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.PC’), has been filed by the petitioner, on the basis of

¶25

¶26

compromise arrived at between him and respondents No. 2 for quashing of FIR No.73 of 2019, dated 12.11.2019 registered in Police Station Brow , District Kullu, H.P. under Sections 279,337,338 of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’) and 181 and 192 of Motor Vehicle Act and consequent proceedings arising thereto.

¶27

Pradeep Kumar (petitioner No.1), Dinesh Kumar (petitioner No.2) and Sanjeev Kumar (respondent No.4) were present in the Court on 8.7.2022. They were duly identified by their respective learned counsel and their statements on oath were recorded separately. Statements of Raksha Devi (respondent No.2) and Karam Singh (respondent No.3), who are present in person today, have been recorded and placed on the file .They have been duly identified by their learned counsel.

¶28

Complainant Pradeep Kumar, in his statement, has stated that FIR in present case has been lodged on the basis of his statement recorded by police. He has stated that the car was being driven by petitioner Dinesh Kumar, who was also owner of the car. He has stated that, including driver, they were five persons travelling in the car and the accident had taken place at Shobhali deep curve, where the vehicle was going uphill in normal speed, but suddently on curve a cow came on road because of which petitioner lost control of the car and it fell down, causing injuries to all including the driver. He has further stated that at the time of making statement to police he was under impression that accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of Dinesh Kumar but lateron recollected the accident and discussed with other occupants of the car and formed the opinion that accident did not take place due to rash or negligent driving of Dinesh Kumar but because of stray cow, which came on road suddenly. He has also stated that in the car, Sanjeev Kumar, Raksha Devi and Karam Singh were also sitting on rear seat. He has further stated that after realizing the cause of accident, he does not want to pursue the criminal proceedings initiated on the basis of FIR lodged by him. Therefore, he has prayed for permission to withdraw the complaint for quashing the FIR.

¶29

¶30

Dinesh Kumar (petitioner No.2), endorsing the statement of complainant, has undertaken to be more careful in future.

¶31

Sanjeev Kumar(respondent No.4), endorsing the statement of complainant Pradeep Kumar, has stated that he has compromised the matter and has no objection if the complaint is withdrawn by complainant for quashing the FIR.

¶32

Raksha Devi and Karam Singh, who are injured in the present case, have stated that about three years ago, while they were traveling in the Car being driven by Dinesh Kumar (petitioner No.2), the accident took place on sudden appearance of a cow on road at deep curve and the accident did not take pace due rash and negligent driving of Dinesh Kumar. They have further stated that they have no objection for compounding the case.

¶33

Petitioners Pradeep Kumar, Dinesh Kumar and respondents Raksha Devi, Karam Singh and Sanjeev Kumar have stated that they have compromised the matter and deposed in the Court out of their free will and consent, and without any threat or coercion of any kind.

¶34

It is contended on behalf of respondent No.1-State that petitioners are 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.

¶35

Three Judges Bench of the Apex Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Ors . 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.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,

¶36

¶37

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 favour 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.

¶38

The Apex Court in Parbatbhai Aahir alias Parbhathbhai 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.

¶39

The Apex Court in case Narinder Singh and others 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.

¶40

12 No doubt, Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code 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

¶41

¶42

Court under Section 482 Cr.PC is not inhibited by the provisions of Section 320 Cr.PC and FIR as well as criminal proceedings can be quashed by exercising inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.PC, 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.

¶43

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.

¶44

Now, the matter has been amicably settled between the private parties, as such, I am of the considered view that no fruitful purpose shall be served to continue the criminal proceedings.

¶45

Considering the 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. 73 of 2019 dated 12.11.2019, registered in Police Station Brow, District Kullu, H.P. is quashed. Consequent to quashing of FIR, criminal proceedings pending/ initiated against petitioner-accused in pursuance thereto, are also quashed.

¶46

Petition stands disposed of in above terms, so also pending application(s), if any.

¶47

The parties are permitted to use/produce copy of this order downloaded from the web-page of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, before the authorities concerned, and the said authorities shall not insist for production of a certified copy but if required, may verify passing of order from Website of the High Court.

¶48

(Vivek Singh Thakur), 3^rd August, 2022 Judge. (veena)

Pradeep Kumar and Anr. v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep Kumar and Anr. v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pritam Chand Vs Managing Director, Hrtc and Ors.

Vikas Sood Vs Govind Sharma

Union of India Vs Sh. Dhalu and Ors.

Mangal Singh @ Gopi Vs State of Hp and Anr.

Prem Chand and Anr. Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Ruchika Sidhwani Alias Mona Vs Sunita Kashyap and Another