Dheeraj Kumar Vs State of Hp and Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr.MMO No.169 of 2024

Date of Decision: 14.06.2023

_______________________________________________________ Dheeraj Kumar …….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram:

¶5

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶6

For the Petitioners: Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Suri, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocate Generals with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate Generals for respondent No.1 to 3-State. Ms. Abhilasha, Advocate, for respondents No.4 to 6. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

¶7

By way of instant petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for quashing of FIR No.258 of 2018 (Annexure P-1) , dated 29.12.2018, under Sections 279 & 304-A of Indian Penal Code and Sections 181 & 187 of Motor Vehicle Act, registered at Police Station Amb, District Una, H.P., as well as consequent proceedings, if any, pending adjudication in the competent court of law, on the basis of the

¶8

1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶9

2

¶10

compromise arrived inter se parties (Annexure P-2) , whereby they have resolved to settle their dispute amicably inter se them.

¶11

Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record are that FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings came to be lodged at the behest of respondent No. 4 Mr. Rohit Bali (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘complainant’), who alleged that on 28.12.2018 at about 08:15 p.m., while he was going to Shiv Mandir to attend Arti, he saw one person lying on the road. He alleged that blood was oozing out from the head of the person lying on the road and he was unconscious. Complainant called ambulance, which reached after half an hour and thereafter, person lying on the road was taken to hospital and he was declared brought dead in the hospital. Subsequently, it transpired that petitioner-accused along with deceased Karam Chand was going on motorcycle bearing registration No. HP-72C-1243, but same met with an accident, as a result thereof, both petitioner and deceased Karam Chand suffered injuries. While petitioner-accused had gone to his nearby house to call other people for help, complainant Mr. Rohit Bali, after having reached on the spot, made a telephonic call to ambulance, which took deceased to hospital, but unfortunately Karam Chand was declared brought dead. In the aforesaid background, FIR, as detailed herein above, came to

¶12

3

¶13

be lodged against the petitioner under relevant provisions of Indian Penal Code/ Motor Vehicle Act.

¶14

Though, after completion of investigation, Police has already presented challan in the competent court of law, but before the same could be taken to its logical end, complainant, respondents No. 5 & 6 and accused named in the FIR have entered into compromise, whereby they have resolved to settle their dispute amicably intere se them and as such, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, for quashing of FIR as well as consequent proceedings, if any, pending adjudication in the competent court of law.

¶15

Perusal of compromise placed on record clearly reveals that complainant and parents of deceased, respondent No. 5 & 6, of their own free will and without any external pressure have entered into compromise with the accused, with a view to maintain cordial relations in future, coupled with the fact that petitioner-accused had also suffered injury in the accident. This Court with a view to ascertain the correctness of compromise placed on record, deemed it necessary to cause presence of respondents No. 4 to 6 as well as petitioner-accused in the Court. Complainant Rohit Bali is the person, at whose behest FIR came to be instituted, whereas respondents No. 5 & 6 are the parents of deceased Karam Chand.

¶16

4

¶17

Today complainant and respondents No. 5 & 6 as well as

¶18

accused named in the FIR have come present. Respondents No. 4 to 6 on oath stated before this Court that they of their own volition and without there being any external pressure have entered into compromise with the petitioner-accused, whereby both the parties have resolved to settle their dispute amicably inter se them. Respondents No. 5 & 6 stated that the accident in which their son lost his life did not occur on account of rash and negligent driving by the petitioner-accused, rather on account of darkness. They stated that since petitioner-accused is like their son and he had been taking care of their son, while he was working in Jindal Factory Thathal, Amb, they do not wish to prosecute the case further. They further stated that otherwise after the death of their son, petitioner-accused took lot of care of them and has also provided all necessary help, as such, they shall have no objection in case, prayer made for quashing of FIR through instant petition is accepted. Their statement is taken on record.

¶19

While opposing the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner-accused for quashing of FIR, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, vehemently argued that at the time of accident, both petitioner-accused and deceased were travelling on one motorcycle, but petitioner-accused after accident fled away from

¶20

5

¶21

the spot and as such, he does not deserve any leniency and needs to be dealt with in accordance with law. However, Mr. Panwar, was unable to dispute that after accident petitioner-accused himself apprised police authorities with regard to fact that accident occurred, while he was driving a motorcycle.

¶22

Bare perusal of contents of FIR suggests that after accident petitioner-accused had fled away, but as per material evidence especially statement given by respondents No. 4 to 6, petitioner-accused had gone to nearby house to call other people, but in the meantime, deceased was taken to hospital pursuant to telephonic call made by respondent No. 4 to the ambulance. It is none of the case of the prosecution that after alleged incident petitioneraccused failed to come present, rather he on the same date presented himself before police authorities and narrated the entire incident.

¶23

The question, which now needs consideration is “whether FIR 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 Section 482 Cr.P.C (hereinafter to be referred to as the “ Code ”) is not to be exercised in the cases which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity,

¶24

6

¶25

etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society?

¶26

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 Cr.P.C is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 Cr.P.C. No doubt, under Section 482 Cr.P.C, 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 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.

¶27

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

¶28

7

¶29

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. Aforesaid view taken by Hon'ble Apex Court has been further reiterated in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and anr. (2012) 10 SCC 303.

¶30

The Hon’ble Apex Court in case Gian Singh supra 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 to compound the offences under Section 320 Cr.P.C. 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.P.C the Court must have due regard to the nature and 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

¶31

8

¶32

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.

¶33

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.

¶34

In the case at hand, offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioner is petty offence coupled with the fact that the petitioner, complainant and the parents of deceased, respondents No. 5 & 6 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

¶35

9

¶36

conviction of accused and as such, this court sees no impediment in accepting the prayer made by petitioner for quashing of FIR.

¶37

Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court (supra), FIR No.258 of 2018, dated 29.12.2018, under Sections Sections 279 & 304-A of Indian Penal Code and Sections 181 & 187 of Motor Vehicle Act, registered at Police Station Amb, District Una, H.P., as well as consequent proceedings, if any, pending adjudication in the competent court of law are quashed and set aside. Accused is acquitted of the charges framed against him.

¶38

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

¶39

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

¶40

June 14, 2024 (sunil)

Dheeraj Kumar v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dheeraj Kumar v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Narayan Dass Chauhan Vs State of Hp and Anr.

Jai Parkash Vs Rakesh Kumar

Tahseen Gul Vs State of Hp

Ashima Kashiv Vs State of Hp

Babu Lal Vs Om Prakash Chauhan

Shankar Saroj Vs State Bank of India