AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sandeep Sharma, J
By way of present petitions filed under S. 482 CrPC, prayer has been made on behalf of petitioners, for quashing of FIR No. 12, dated 15.1.2022 under Ss. 279, 504 and 427 IPC and S.187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, registered at Police Station Sadar, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh alongwith consequential proceedings i.e. Police Challan no. 136 of 2022 pending before learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.7 Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, on the basis of compromise arrived inter se parties.
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 Bittu (hereinafter, complainant) who alleged that 14.1.2022, at 11.15 am, while he was going to his house and reached near Dudhli, a Maruti car bearing registration no. HP-63A-5801 being driven by Ravi Kumar, hit another vehicle bearing registration No. HP-01A-7667 and when he was asked about it, he started quarreling and fled from the spot. It is alleged that subsequently, Ravi Kumar, while driving another vehicle bearing registration No. HP-52-0731 went toward Dummi and caused damage to the vehicles parked on the way. He alleged that the petitioner not only broke glasses and wind screen of the cars as detailed herein above, but also extended threats a such, appropriate action in accordance with law be taken against him. Since in earlier petitioner Ravi Kumar was implicated as accused and later on Deepak Kumar was also implicated as accused, as such, two separate petitions have been filed by them for quashing of FIR. Though police after having completed investigation has already presented Challan in the competent court of law but before the same could be taken to its logical end, parties to the lis entered into compromise, whereby they have resolved to settle the dispute inter se them amicably and as such, petitioners have approached this Court for quashing of FIR alongwith consequential proceedings.
Record further reveals that the petitioner Ravi Kumar had also lodged FIR No. 11, dated 15.1.2022 against respondents Nos. 4 to 6, which has been ordered to be compromised by this Court vide order dated13.3.2023 in CrMMO No. 39 of 2023.
Since both the parties have compromised the matter and one FIR stands already quashed by this Court, as noticed above coupled with the fact that the complainant, Bittu does not wish to continue with criminal proceedings against the petitioners herein, prayer has been made by the petitioners in the instant petition. Status report filed by the respondent-State reveals that the parties have settled the matter.
Respondent No.4 Bittu has come present pi in the court and is duly represented by Mr. Ashwani Sharma, Advocate. Respondent No.4 states on oath that he of his own volition and without any external pressure has entered into compromise with the petitioners whereby, they have resolved to settle the dispute inter se them amicably.He states that FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings is result of misunderstanding coupled with the fact that the petitioners have apologized for their misconduct and misbehavior and undertaken not repeat such acts in future, as such, he shall have no objection in case FIR as detailed above alongwith consequential proceedings is quashed and set aside and petitioners are acquitted. While admitting contents of the compromises to be correct, he also admits his signatures thereupon.
After having heard statements of respondent No.4, 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 petitioners are remote and bleak, therefore, respondent-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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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 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.
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.
In the case at hand, offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioners are petty offence coupled with the fact that the petitioners and the complainant have compromised the matter, as such, no fruitful purpose would be served in continuing with criminal prosecution of the petitioners coupled with the fact that in the FIR lodged by the petitioner against respondents Nos. 4 to 6, matter has been compromised. Otherwise also, there are bleak and remote chances of conviction of accused and as such, this court sees no impediment in accepting the prayer made by petitioners for quashing of FIR.
Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court (supra), FIR No. 12, dated 15.1.2022 under Ss. 279, 504 and 427 IPC and S.187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, registered at Police Station Sadar, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh alongwith consequential proceedings i.e. Police Challan no. 136 of 2022 pending before learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.7 Shimla, Himachal Pradesh are quashed and set aside. Both the petitioners are acquitted of the charges framed against him.
The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms, alongwith all pending applications.
Copy Dasti.