Allowed

Surya Partap Thakur v. State of Hp and Another

Himachal Pradesh HC7 Mar 2023CRMMO/94/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court permitted quashing of FIR and consequential proceedings under Section 482 CrPC based on a settlement between the accused and the complainants for charges of rash and negligent driving, finding no heinous character and allowing acquittal.

What did the court decide?

FIR No.36 and Case No. 141/2021 under Ss. 279, 337 and 338 IPC are quashed; petitioner is acquitted.

Surya Partap Thakur Vs State of Hp and… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Himachal Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CrMMO No. 94 of 2023 Decided on: March 7, 2023

¶2

___________________ Surya Partap Thakur State of Himachal Prade	______________________ Versus sh and others	_______________ ……...Petitioner …Respondents
___________________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sa Whether approved for	______________________ ndeep Sharma, Judge. reporting	_______________
___________________ For the petitioner:	______________________ Mr. Sanjeev K. Suri, Adv	_______________ ocate.
For the respondents:	Mr. Rajan Kahol and Additional Advocates respondent Nos. 1 to 3.	Mr. B.C. Verma, General, for
	Mr. Sahil Thakur, respondent Nos. 4 and 5	Advocate, for .
___________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (o	______________________ ral)	_______________

¶3

By way of instant petition filed under S.482 CrPC, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for quashing of FIR No.36, dated 6.3.2021 under Ss. 279, 337 and 338 IPC registered at Police Station Dharamshala, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh alongwith consequential proceedings i.e. Case No. 141/2021 pending before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dharamshala, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, on the basis of compromise.

¶4

2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record, are that the FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings came to be lodged at the behest of petitioner Surya Partap Thakur, who alleged that on 6.3.2021 at 2.30 am, while he was going towards Dari Pul, Chaitru alongwith his friend Manik Pathania and had reached ITI turn, a car bearing registration No. DL-1CT-0686 (Lancer) being driven

¶5

¶6

by respondent No.5 Gokul Thakur, came in high speed and hit his motor cycle, as a result of which, he and his friend, Manik Pathania suffered multiple injuries. Though, petitioner Surya Partap Thakur alleged that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.5, but during investigation, it transpired that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the petitioner, as such, police filed Challan under Ss. 279, 337 and 338 IPC against the petitioner, but before the same could be taken to its logical end, parties have entered into compromise, whereby they have resolved to settle the dispute inter se them amicably, as such, petitioner has approached this Court by way of instant proceedings, praying therein for quashing of FIR as well as consequential proceedings.

¶7

3. Pursuant to the direction passed by this Court on 28.2.2023, respondent-State has filed its reply, but same is silent with respect to the factum of the compromise inter se parties.

¶8

4. Respondent No. 4, injured and respondent No.5, driver of the car bearing registration No. DL-1CT-0686, are present in the court in person and are duly represented by Mr. Sahil Thakur Advocate.

¶9

5. Respondent No.4 states that he of his own volition and without any external pressure has entered into compromise with the petitioner, whereby they have resolved to settle the dispute inter se them amicably. He states that the accident did not occur due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the petitioner, rather on account of

¶10

¶11

darkness and error of judgment, as such, he shall have no objection in case prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for quashing of FIR alongwith consequential proceedings, is accepted and petitioner is acquitted of the charges framed against him. He further states that moreover, he has recovered from the injuries coupled with the fact that the he was duly taken care of by the petitioner during his treatment. While admitting contents of the compromise to be correct, he also admits his signatures thereupon. His statement is taken on record.

¶12

6. Respondent No.5 Gokul Thakur, whose car was damaged in the accident, state that he of his own volition and without any external pressure has entered into compromise with the petitioner whereby they have resolved to settle the dispute inter se them amicably. He states that accident did not occur on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of the petitioner rather, on account of error of judgment as such, he shall have no objection, in case prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for quashing of FIR alongwith consequential proceedings is accepted. While admitting contents of the compromise to be correct, he also admits his signatures thereupon. His statement is also taken on record.

¶13

7. After having heard statements of respondents Nos. 4 and 5, learned Additional Advocate General states that since the parties have compromised the matter and complainant is no more interested in pursuing the criminal case against the petitioner, as such, chances of conviction of petitioner are remote and bleak, therefore, respondent-

¶14

¶15

State shall have no objection in case, prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for quashment of FIR alongwith consequential proceedings is allowed and he is acquitted of the offence in question.

¶16

8. The question which now needs consideration is whether FIR’s in question can be ordered to be quashed when Hon'ble Apex Court in Narinder Singh and others versus State of Punjab and another (2014)6 SCC 466 has specifically held that power under S. 482 CrPC is not to be exercised in the cases which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society.

¶17

9. At this stage, it would be relevant to take note of the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Narinder Singh (supra), whereby the Hon’ble Apex Court has formulated guidelines for accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings. Perusal of judgment referred to above clearly depicts that in para 29.1, Hon’ble Apex Court has returned the findings that power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable and where the parties have settled the matter between themselves, however, this power is to be

¶18

¶19

exercised sparingly and with great caution. In para Nos. 29 to 29.7 of the judgment Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down certain parameters to be followed, while compounding offences.

¶20

10. Careful perusal of para 29.3 of the judgment suggests that such a power is not to be exercised in the cases which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Apart from this, offences committed under special statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by Public Servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender. On the other hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes may be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves.

¶21

11. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab

¶22

and anr. (2012) 10 SCC 303 has held that power of the High Court in quashing of the criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent power is distinct and different from the power of a Criminal Court for compounding offences under Section 320 Cr.PC. Even in the judgment passed in Narinder Singh’s case, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that while exercising inherent power of quashment under Section 482 Cr.PC the Court must have due regard to the nature and

¶23

¶24

gravity of the crime and its social impact and it cautioned the Courts not to exercise the power for quashing proceedings in heinous and serious offences of mental depravity, murder, rape, dacoity etc. However subsequently, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Dimpey Gujral and Ors . vs. Union Territory through Administrator, UT, Chandigarh and Ors . (2013( 11 SCC 497 has further reiterated that continuation of criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law because the alleged offences are not heinous offences showing extreme depravity nor are they against the society. Hon'ble Apex Court further observed that when offences of a personal nature, burying them would bring about peace and amity between the two sides.

¶25

12. Hon’ble Apex Court in its judgment dated 4th October, 2017, titled as Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others versus State of Gujarat and Another , passed in Criminal Appeal No.1723 of 2017 arising out of SLP(Crl) No.9549 of 2016, reiterated the principles/ parameters laid down in Narinder Singh’s case supra for accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings.

¶26

13. In the case at hand, offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioner are petty offence coupled with the fact that the petitioner and the complainant have compromised the matter, as such, no fruitful purpose would be served in continuing with criminal prosecution of the petitioner. Otherwise also, there are bleak and remote chances of conviction of accused and as such, this court sees

¶27

¶28

no impediment in accepting the prayer made by petitioners for quashing of FIR.

¶29

14. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court (supra), FIR No.36, dated 6.3.2021 under Ss. 279, 337 and 338 IPC registered at Police Station Dharamshala, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh alongwith consequential proceedings i.e. Case No. 141/2021 pending before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dharamshala, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh are quashed and set aside. Accused is acquitted of the charges framed against him.

¶30

15. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms, alongwith all pending applications.

¶31

Copy Dasti.

¶32

(Sandeep Sharma) Judge

¶33

March 7, 2023 (Vikrant)

Surya Partap Thakur v. State of Hp and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surya Partap Thakur v. State of Hp and Another

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

Akshay Kumar Vs State of Hp and Another

Sumit Kumar Vs State of Hp

Vicky Dogra Vs State of Hp

Baldev Singh Brakta Vs Yashpal

Naresh Kumar Vs State of Hp and Another

Makhan Deen Vs State of Hp