Shiv Kumar Mandal vs State Of HP And Anr

Sandeep Sharma, J

By way of present petition filed under Section 482 CrPC, prayer has been made by the petitioner-accused for quashing of FIR No. 58 dated 22.9.2018, registered at Police Station Kotkhai, District Shimla, H.P., under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC alongwith consequential proceedings pending in the competent court of law.

Precisely the case of the petitioner, as emerge from the pleadings is that the FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings at the behest of respondent No.2 (hereinafter, ‘complainant’), who alleged that on 21.9.2018, he alongwith his friends had gone to attend marriage of his friend Kedar Nath at Kotkhai in car bearing registration No. HP12J5416. Complainant further alleged that when car had reached near Huli, driver of the car i.e. petitioner lost control of the vehicle, as a result of which, vehicle struck against the hill and all the occupants of the car suffered injuries. He alleged that accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver namely Shiv Kumar and appropriate action be taken against him. On the basis of aforesaid complaint, FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings came to be lodged against the petitioner under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC. Though after completion of investigation police presented challan in the competent court of law but before same could be taken to its logical end, parties have entered into compromise and resolved to settle the dispute inter se them amicably. 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

Pursuant to order dated 17.4.2023, respondent-State has filed the status report under the signature of SHO PS Kotkhai, but same is silent about the compromise, if any, arrived inter-se parties. Though HC Vikram, PS Kotkhai, has come present with records, but he has no information with regard to compromise, if any, arrived inter-se parties.

Respondent No.2-complainant namely Sanjeev Kumar, who is being represented by Mr. Rajul Chauhan, Advocate, states on oath that he, of his own volition and without any external pressure, has entered into compromise with the petitioner-accused, whereby parties have resolved to settle the dispute inter-se them amicably. He states 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, he 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, he also admits his signatures thereupon.

Having heard statement made on oath by respondent No.2-complainant, 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 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.

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.

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.

The Hon’ble Apex Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and anr. (2012) 10 SCC 303 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.

Since parties have compromised the matter with each other and respondent No.2-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 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.

Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court (supra), FIR No. 58 dated 22.9.2018, registered at Police Station Kotkhai, District Shimla, H.P., under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC alongwith consequential proceedings is quashed and set aside. Accused is acquitted of the charges framed against him.

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