Rohit vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Another

Vivek Singh Thakur, J

The instant petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (herein after referred to as 'Cr.PC') has been filed by petitioner-accused, on the basis of compromise arrived at between petitioner-accused Rohit and complainant-respondent No. 2, Suresh Kumar for quashing FIR No. 51 of 2018, dated 18.5.2018, under Sections 279, 337 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 181, 192 and 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act, registered at Police Station, Shahpur, District Kangra, H.P.

Respondent No. 2-complainant, Sh. Suresh Kumar is present in the Court and his statement has been recorded on oath, wherein he has deposed that on the date of accident, when he was crossing the road, he was hit by Motor Cycle being driven by petitioner Rohit present in the Court. He doesn't know how the accident had taken place, as he was crossing the road at that time, but had not noticed the vehicle or the Motor Cycle coming on the road and after the accident he lodged the complaint on the basis of information supplied to him by Police officials, as at the time of accident, he was alone and immediately after he was hit by the Motor Cycle he had fallen unconscious and therefore, the cause of accident was not in his personal knowledge, therefore, he is not able to say that how the accident had occurred and as to whether petitioner was at fault or not and that after the accident petitioner along with his family had approached him in his village and had taken care of his injuries and further that petitioner is a young graduate engineer and even if had it been fault on his part, he would have forgive him, as he was feeling guilty for hitting him with his Motor Cycle, therefore, he does not intend to continue criminal proceedings against him and has prayed for compounding the case. He has stated that he is deposing in the Court out of his free will, consent and also without any coercion, pressure or threat etc.

Statement of petitioner/accused has also been recorded on oath, wherein he, endorsing the statement of complainant, has stated that he is feeling guilty for hitting the complainant and therefore has repentance for the same and has apologized to the complainant, who has agreed to forgive him. He undertakes to be more careful in future. He further deposed that at the time of accident he was not in possession of documents of the vehicle as well as driving licence, but now he possesses the same. He has also stated that he has deposed in the Court out of his free will, consent and without any coercion, pressure or threat.

It is contended on behalf of respondent No. 1-State that 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 Ors. 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 case Narinder Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab and Ors. reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, 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 Section 279 is not compoundable under Section 320 Cr. P.C., however, as explained by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh's and Narinder Singh'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 present case, complainant/respondent No. 2 (who has compromised the matter with petitioner-accused) has appeared in person in this Court and his statement, as discussed in para 2 supra, has also been recorded.

Offences in question, for material on record, do 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. In view of statement of respondent No. 2-complainant, recorded on oath in this Court, it is a fit case for allowing the petition.

Keeping in view the ratio of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and considering facts and evidence of the case in its entirety, present petition is allowed and matter is permitted to be compounded. Consequently, FIR No. 51 of 2018, dated 18.5.2018, registered at Police Station, Shahpur, District Kangra, H.P. is quashed. Consequent to quashing of FIR, criminal proceedings arisen in pursuance thereto, if any, also stand quashed.

Petition stands allowed in the aforesaid terms, so also pending application(s), if any.