Disposed

Hardeep v. State of Hp and Another

Himachal Pradesh HC19 Jul 2024CRMMO/507/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition under Section 482 CrPC sought quashing of FIR registered over a road accident on the basis of a compromise between the parties. The complainant affirmed the compromise on oath; the State raised no objection. Relying on Supreme Court guidelines, the court found the offences petty and quashed the FIR and consequential proceedings, acquitting the accused.

What did the court decide?

FIR No.190 of 2019 dated 20.08.2019 and consequent proceedings quashed; accused acquitted.

Hardeep Vs State of Hp and Another — Quashing and FIR | Himachal Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

Cr.MMO No.507 of 2024

¶3

Date of Decision: 19.07.2024

¶4

________________________________________ Hardeep Versus	_______________ …….Petitioner
State of H.P. & another	… Respondents
________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹	_______________

¶5

For the Petitioner: Mr. Nitin Misra, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No.1/State. Ms. Kiran Verma, Advocate, for respondent No.2. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

¶6

By way of instant petition filed under Section 482 of the

¶7

Code of Criminal Procedure, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for quashing of FIR No. 190 of 2019, dated 20.08.2019, registered at police Station, West Shimla, District Shimla, H.P.as well as consequent proceedings pending adjudication in the competent Court of law, on the basis of the compromise arrived inter se parties, whereby both the parties have resolved to settle their dispute amicably interse them.

¶8

2. 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.2, Sh.Om Parkash

¶9

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

¶10

¶11

( hereinafter referred to as the complainant), who alleged that on 19.08.2019, while he was going towards Panchkula driving his Pickup bearing registration No.HP35-4219 and had reached near Khawara Chowki No.5, a Pickup bearing registration No. PB-13-Z-7791 being driven by petitioner came in high speed and hit his vehicle, as a result thereof, damage was caused to his vehicle and he also suffered injuries on his leg. Since complainant specifically alleged that accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the petitioner, FIR, sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings, came to be lodged against the petitioner. Though, after completion of the investigation, police presented the challan in the competent Court of law, but before the same could be taken to its logical end, parties have entered into compromise, whereby they have resolved to settle their dispute amicably interse them. In the aforesaid background, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings for quashing of the FIR as well as consequent proceedings pending in the competent court of law.

¶12

Vide order dated 17.06.2024, this Court with a view to ascertain the correctness and genuineness of the compromise placed on record, deemed it necessary to cause presence of the parties in the Court, especially respondent No.2. Besides above, this Court also called upon the respondent-State to file status report, specifically stating therein factum of compromise, if any, arrived Interse parties. Respondent-State has filed status report under the signatures of SHO

¶13

¶14

Police Station, Boileauganj Shimla, wherein factum of compromise has been duly acknowledged.

¶15

Respondent No.2/complainant has also come present and is being represented by Ms. Kiran Verma, Advocate. He states on oath before this Court that he of his own volition and without there being any external pressure has entered into the compromise with the petitioner, whereby both the parties have resolved to settle their dispute amicabl y interse them. He states that FIR, sought to be quashed, is result of misunderstanding because accident did not occur on account of rash and negligent driving of the petitioner, rather on account of error of judgment. He states that since he has already recovered from the injuries suffered by him in the accident and stands duly compensated qua the damage caused to his vehicle, he shall have no objection in case prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for quashing of the FIR as well as consequent proceedings, if any, pending adjudication in the competent Court of law, is accepted. While admitting the contents of the compromise placed on record to be correct, he also admits his signatures upon the same. His statement is taken on record.

¶16

Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, after having heard the aforesaid statement made by respondent No. 2 fairly states that no fruitful purpose would be served in case FIR as well as consequent proceedings sought to be quashed are allowed to sustain. He further states that otherwise also, chances of conviction of

¶17

¶18

petitioner-accused are very remote and bleak in view of the statement made by respondent No.2/ complainant as such, respondent-State shall have no objection in case the prayer made in the petition is allowed.

¶19

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 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., since such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society.

¶20

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

¶21

¶22

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.

¶23

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. 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.

¶24

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

¶25

¶26

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 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.

¶27

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.

¶28

In the case at hand also, offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioner do not involve offences of moral turpitude

¶29

¶30

or any grave/heinous crime, rather same are petty offences, as such, this Court deems it appropriate to quash the FIR as well as consequential proceedings thereto, especially keeping in view the fact that the petitioner and respondent Nos.2 have compromised the matter interse them, in which case, possibility of conviction is remote and no fruitful purpose would be served in continuing with the criminal proceedings.

¶31

Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court (supra), FIR No. 190 of 2019, dated 20.08.2019, registered at police Station, West Shimla, District Shimla, H.P.as well as consequent proceedings pending adjudication in the competent Court of law, are quashed and set aside. Accused is acquitted of the charges framed against him.

¶32

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

¶33

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

¶34

July 19, 2024 (shankar)

Hardeep v. State of Hp and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hardeep 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

Dinesh Kumar Sharma Vs State of Hp

Manoj Sharma Vs State of Hp and Another

Mohinder Singh Vs Chungi Lal Negi (Deceased through LRs Vinod Kumar Negi and Another)

Surinder Sharma Vs Laiq Ram

Sunny Malhotra and Another Vs State of Hp and Another

Narayan Singh Vs State of Hp