Lutesh Kumar vs State Of H.P. And Others

Vivek Singh Thakur, J

This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of FIR No. 47 of 2019, dated 5.6.2019, registered at Police Station, Janjehli, District Mandi, H.P., under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC and consequential proceedings in case No. 56 of 2019, titled as State of H.P. Vs. Lutesh Kumar, pending before learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Gohar.

Respondents No.2 and 3 were present in the Court on 8.3.2021, who were identified as such by their respective counsel(s), and that day their statements on oath were recorded.

Respondent No. 2/complainant Chaman Lal in his statement had deposed that, petitioner Lutesh Kumar was serving with him as an Assistant in his shop of fast food in Kuthah Mela and on 5.6.2019 at about 8:00 P.M., with his consent, he had taken motor cycle of Murari Lal to go towards Village and after some time, when he came to know that motor cycle being driven by petitioner had hit respondent No. 3 Lal Singh, who was going on road at Majhakal, he rushed to the spot and sent the petitioner as well as respondent N. 3 (injured) to Civil Hospital in ambulance along with police and this information was given by him to the police, but he was not witness to the accident and he was not knowing that how the accident had taken place and he was not able to say that accident had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of the petitioner and as such he was not interested in pursuing the criminal case against the petitioner. He had further stated that he entered into compromise and also deposed in the Court, out of his free will, consent and also without any external pressure, coercion or threat of any kind.

Respondent No. 3 Lal Singh (injured) in his statement had deposed that he had received injuries in the incident as motor cycle hit him from the back side when he was going on the road and he was not knowing the cause of accident and he had not seen the petitioner driving the motor cycle rashly and negligently and did not notice the manner in which he was driving the motorcycle. He had endorsed the statement of respondent No. 2/complainant to be true and correct and had further stated that he entered into and signed the compromise out of his free will, consent, and also without any kind of threat, coercion or pressure etc.

It is contended on behalf of respondent-State that petitioner/accused is not entitled to invoke inherent jurisdiction of this Court to exercise its power on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties with respect to an offence not compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C.

It is apt to record herein that a three Judges Bench of the Apex Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Others reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, explaining that High Court has inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with no statutory limitation including Section 320 Cr.P.C., has held that these powers are to be exercised to secure the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process of any Court and these powers can be exercised to quash criminal proceedings or complaint or FIR in appropriate cases where offender and victim have settled their dispute and for that purpose no definite category of offence can be prescribed. However, it is also observed that Courts must have due regard to nature and gravity of the crime and criminal proceedings in heinous and serious offences or offence like murder, rape and dacoity etc. should not be quashed despite victim or victim family have settled the dispute with offender. Jurisdiction vested in High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is held to be exercisable for quashing criminal proceedings in cases having overwhelming and predominatingly civil flavour particularly offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil partnership, or such like transactions, or even offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry etc., family disputes or other such disputes where wrong is basically private or personal nature where parties mutually resolve their dispute amicably. It was also held that no category or cases for this purpose could be prescribed and each case has to be dealt with on its own merit but it is also clarified that this power does not extend to crimes against society.

The Apex Court in Parbatbhai Aahir alias Parbathbhai Bhimsinghbhai Karmur and others vs. State of Gujarat and another, (2017) 9 SCC 641 summarizing the broad principles regarding inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has recognized that these powers are not inhibited by provisions of Section 320 Cr.P.C.

The Apex Court in case Narinder Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab and Others reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 and also in State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and Others (2019) 5 SCC 688 has summed up and laid down principles, by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with criminal proceedings.

No doubt Sections 279 IPC is not compoundable under Section 320 Cr. P.C. However, as explained by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh's, Narinder Singh's, Parbatbhai Aahir's and Laxmi Narayan's cases supra, power of High Court under Section 482 Cr.PC is not inhibited by the provisions of Section 320 Cr.P.C. and FIR as well as criminal proceedings can be quashed by exercising inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.PC, if it is warranted in given facts and circumstances of the case for ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court, even in those cases which are not compoundable where parties have settled the matter between themselves.

In Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab, (2008) 4 SCC 582, the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasized and advised that in the matter of compromise in criminal proceedings, keeping in view of nature of this case, to save the time of the Court for utilizing to decide more effective and meaningful litigation, a commonsense approach, based on ground realities and bereft of the technicalities of law, should be applied.

Offence in question, for material on record, does not fall in the category of offences termed to be prohibited, in the pronouncements of Apex Court, to be compounded exercising power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Further considering statement of complainant recorded on oath in the Court, it is apparent that no fruitful purpose is going to be served by continuing criminal proceedings in reference.

Keeping in view the ratio of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and considering facts of case in its entirety, I am of considered view that it is a fit case for allowing the petition. Therefore, matter is permitted to be compounded. Consequently, FIR No. 47 of 2019, dated 5.6.2019, registered at Police Station Janjehli, District Mandi, H.P., is quashed. Consequent to quashing of FIR No. 47 of 2019, dated 5.6.2019, criminal proceedings, in case No. 56 of 2019, titled as State of H.P. Vs. Lutesh Kumar, pending before learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Gohar also stand quashed.

Petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so also pending applications, if any.

Copy Dasti.