Allowed

Deepak Garg v. State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC3 Sept 2024CRMMO/803/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh quashed an FIR and acquitted the petitioner in a rash and negligent driving case. Relying on the Hon'ble Apex Court's guidelines regarding the quashing of non-cognizable offences and the sparing exercise of inherent power under Section 482 CrPC, the court ruled that since the dispute was settled through compromise and involved petty offences, continuing proceedin

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 36/2024 dated 14.5.2024 and consequential proceedings quashed and set aside; Petitioner acquitted of charges.

Deepak Garg Vs State of Hp and Others — Motor Accident Claims | Himachal Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

2024:HHC:7821

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

_______________________	CrMMO No.803 of 2024 Date of Decision: 3.9.2024 ______________________________________________
Deepak Garg State of Himachal Pra	……...Petitioner Versus desh and Ors. …....Respondents
Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sa Whether approved for	ndeep Sharma, Judge. reporting?
For the Petitioner:	Mr. Piyush Rathore, Advocate.
For the Respondents:	Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for the State. Ms. Heena Chauhan, Advocate, for respondents No.2 to 6.

¶4

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

¶5

By way of present petition, prayer has been made by the petitioner-accused for quashing of FIR No. 36/2024 dated 14.5.2024, registered at Police Station Kandaghat, Tehsil and District Solan, H.P., under Sections 279 and 337 IPC alongwith consequential proceedings pending in the competent court of law on the basis of compromise arrived inter-se parties.

¶6

2024:HHC:7821

¶7

¶8

2. Precisely, facts of the case, as emerge from the record are that

¶9

the FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings came to be lodged at the behest of respondent No.2 (hereinafter, ‘complainant’), who alleged that on 14.5.2024 at around 2:00pm, while he alongwith his mother, brother, wife and 11 months old daughter was coming towards Basantpur from Solan and had reached near Kisan Bhawan Ded Gharat, one car bearing registration No. HR25J3637 came in high speed from the opposite side and collided against his car, as a result thereof, all the occupants of the car suffered injuries. Since above named complainant alleged that accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the petitioner, FIR sought to be quashed came to be lodged against him. Before challan could be presented in the competent court of law, parties have entered into compromise, whereby they have resolved to settle their dispute amicably. In the aforesaid background, petitioner-accused has approached this court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for quashing of FIR as well as consequential proceedings pending in the competent court of law.

¶10

3. Though pursuant to order dated 27.8.2024, respondent-State

¶11

has filed status report but same is silent about the compromise. Respondents No. 2 to 6 have come present before this Court and are being represented by Ms. Heena Chauhan, Advocate. They state on oath that they

¶12

2024:HHC:7821

¶13

¶14

of their own volition and without there being external pressure have entered into compromise, whereby they have resolved to settle their dispute amicably inter-se them. They further state that since FIR sought to be quashed is a result of misunderstanding and accident in question did not occur on account of rash and negligent driving of the petitioner, rather on account of error of judgment coupled with the fact that they were taken good care by the petitioner during treatment, they shall have no objection in case FIR alongwith consequential proceedings is quashed and set aside. While admitting the contents of the compromise to be correct, they also admit their signatures on the same. Their statement made on oath is taken on record.

¶15

4. Having perused the joint statement made on oath by the complainant as well as injured, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General states that no fruitful purpose will be served in case FIR as well consequent proceedings are allowed to continue against the petitioner. He further states that otherwise also, chances of conviction of the petitioner are remote and bleak on account of statement made by the complainant and injured, as such, he shall have no objection in case prayer made on behalf of the petitioner is accepted and FIR in question alongwith

¶16

2024:HHC:7821

¶17

¶18

consequential proceedings is quashed and set aside and petitioner is acquitted.

¶19

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

¶20

6. 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

¶21

2024:HHC:7821

¶22

¶23

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.

¶24

7. 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.

¶25

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

¶26

anr. (2012) 10 SCC 3 03 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

¶27

2024:HHC:7821

¶28

¶29

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 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.

¶30

9. 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.

¶31

2024:HHC:7821

¶32

¶33

10. In the case at hand also, offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioner do not involve offences of moral turpitude 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 the complainant have compromised the matter inter-se them, in which case, possibility of conviction is remote/bleak and no fruitful purpose would be served in continuing with the criminal proceedings.

¶34

11. Since parties have compromised the matter with each other and complainant, at whose instance FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings came to be lodged, is no more interested in pursuing the criminal prosecution of the petitioners, this court sees no impediment in accepting the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for quashing of the FIR alongwith all consequential proceedings.

¶35

12. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court (supra), FIR No. 36/2024 dated 14.5.2024, registered at Police Station Kandaghat, Tehsil and District Solan, H.P., under Sections 279 and 337 IPC alongwith consequential proceedings is quashed and set aside. Accused is acquitted of the charges

¶36

2024:HHC:7821

¶37

¶38

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

¶39

September 3, 2024 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge

Deepak Garg v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepak Garg v. State of Hp and Others

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

Sonika Sharma Vs State of Hp and Others

Surjitender Vs State of Hp and Another

Chet Ram Vs Sunita

Harpriya Manhas Vs State of Hp

Harpriya Manhas Vs State of Hp

Harpriya Manhas Vs State of Hp