Aditya @Ishu Vs State of Hp

2024:HHC:8211

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CrMMO No. 820 of 2024 Date of Decision: 9.9.2024

_______________________ Aditya @ Ishu 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. Dheeraj K. Verma, 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. Mr. Ajay Kashyap, Advocate, for respondents No. 2 to 4. __________________________________________________

¶5

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

¶6

By way of present petition filed under Section 482 CrPC, prayer has been made by the petitioner-accused for quashing of FIR No. 43/2022, dated 27.4.2022, registered at Police Station Kangra, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC and Sections 181 and 187 of MV Act, alongwith consequential proceedings, pending in the competent court of law, on the basis of compromise.

¶7

2. Precisely the case of the petitioner, as emerge from the pleadings is that the FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings

¶8

2024:HHC:8211

¶9

2

¶10

came to be lodged at the behest of respondent No.2 (hereinafter, ‘complainant’), who alleged that on 27.4.2022, at about 9/10:00 am, while he was present near his Company, he saw one man and woman coming from Kangra side. He alleged that while aforesaid persons were attempting to cross the road, one scooty, number of which, he could not notice, came in high speed and hit both of them, as a result thereof, they suffered injuries. He alleged that driver of the scooty fled from the spot. Since complainant alleged that accident in question happened on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the scooty, case under the afore provisions of law came to be instituted against the petitioner, who subsequently came to be identified as driver of the scooty.

¶11

3. Though after completion of the investigation, police has presented challan in the competent court of law, but before same could be taken to its logical end, parties have entered into compromise, whereby they have amicably resolved to settle the dispute inter se them. In the aforesaid background, petitioner-accused has approached this court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for quashing of FIR and consequential proceedings in the competent court of law.

¶12

4. Pursuant to order dated 29.8.2024, respondent-State has filed status report under the signature of SHO Police Station Kangra, District

¶13

2024:HHC:8211

¶14

3

¶15

Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, which is silent about the compromise, rather it has been stated in the compromise that complainant denied factum of compromise, if any, arrived inter-se parties. Respondent-complainant and respondents No.3 and 4-injured, have also come present and are being represented by Mr. Rajesh Kashyap, Advocate.

¶16

5. Respondents No.2 to 4, state on oath that they, of their own volition and without any external pressure, have entered into compromise with the petitioner-accused, whereby parties have resolved to settle the dispute inter-se them amicably. They state that since accident in question did not occur due to rash and negligent driving of the petitioner-accused, rather on account of error of judgment coupled with the fact that respondents No.3 and 4 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 and petitioner-accused is acquitted of the charges framed against him. While admitting contents of the compromise to be correct, they also admit their signatures thereupon.

¶17

6. Having heard statement made on oath by respondents No.2 to 4, 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

¶18

2024:HHC:8211

¶19

4

¶20

otherwise also, chances of conviction are remote and bleak, on account of statement made by complainant, as such, he shall have no objection in case prayer made on behalf of the petitioner is accepted and FIR in question alongwith consequential proceedings is quashed and set aside and petitioner is acquitted.

¶21

7. 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.

¶22

8. 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

¶23

2024:HHC:8211

¶24

5

¶25

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 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.

¶26

9. 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.

¶27

2024:HHC:8211

¶28

6

¶29

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

¶30

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 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

¶31

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. 11. Hon’ble Apex Court in its judgment dated 4th October, 2017, titled as Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and

¶32

2024:HHC:8211

¶33

7

¶34

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.

¶35

12. Since parties have compromised the matter with each other and respondent No.2-complainant and respondents No.3 and 4-injured, at are no more interested in pursuing the criminal prosecution of the petitioner, this court sees no impediment in accepting the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for quashing of the FIR alongwith all consequential proceedings.

¶36

13. 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 respondents No. 2 to 4 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.

¶37

14. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court (supra), FIR No. 43/2022, dated

¶38

2024:HHC:8211

¶39

8

¶40

27.4.2022, registered at Police Station Kangra, District Kangra, under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC and Sections 181 and 187 of MV Act, alongwith consequential proceedings, is quashed and set aside. Accused is acquitted of the charges framed against him.

¶41

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

¶42

September 9, 2024 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge

Aditya @Ishu v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aditya @Ishu v. State of Hp

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

Man Singh Vs the State of Hp and Others

Dev Prakash and Others Vs the State of Hp and Others

SP Singh Vs Kishna Ram

Naina Vs State of Hp

Yogindra Kapoor Vs State of Hp and Another

Anil Kumar Vs Deputy Commissioner Kullu and Others