Tek Chand vs State Of H.P. & Ors

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J

The instant petition has been moved under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing FIR No.171/2020 dated 06.11.2020, under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Amb, District Una H.P. alongwith consequent judicial proceedings arising out of it.

Respondent No.1 has filed the status report.

As per the status report, the FIR in question was registered at the instance of respondent No.2. The case against the petitioner was that the vehicle driven by him had struck against a parked trolly on 06.11.2020 as a result of which, Smt. Indira Devi (respondent No.3) and Smt. Madhu Bala (respondent No.4), petitioner’ wife & daughter respectively sustained simple injuries.

In this regard, a compromise was executed between the parties, which is at Annexure P-2 (colly) of the petition. In terms of this compromise dated 18.04.2023, complainant - respondent No.2 has settled all his disputes, which are subject matter of the FIR, with the parties. The compromise also records that respondents No.2 to 4 are not interested in pursuing the FIR and consequent judicial proceedings. That they have no objection for quashing of the FIR as well as the judicial proceedings arising out of it.

Learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that he has no objection in case the relief prayed for in the petition is granted in view of the aforesaid compromise and in view of amicable settlement of the disputes between the parties.

The law laid down in respect of exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing or for refusing to quash the FIR and resultant proceedings on the basis of compromise effected by the parties in (2012) 10 SCC 303 titled Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab; (2014) 6 SCC 466 titled Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab; (2017) 9 SCC 641 titled as Parbatbhai Aahir vs. State of Gujarat, has been noticed again by Hon’ble Apex Court in (2019) 5 SCC 688 , titled as State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan with following observations:-

“ 15 . Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of this Court on the point, referred to hereinabove, it is observed and held as under:

15.1 That the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves;

15.2. Such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved 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;

15.3 Similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes like 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;

15.4 Offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act etc. would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal proceedings for the offence under Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act etc. which have a serious impact on the society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code, on the ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst themselves. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to framing the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc. However, such an exercise by the High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and the charge sheet is filed/charge is framed and/or during the trial. Such exercise is not permissible when the matter is still under investigation. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in paragraphs 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in the case of Narinder Singh (supra) should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove;

15.5 While exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non-compoundable offences, which are private in nature and do not have a serious impart on society, on the ground that there is a settlement/compromise between the victim and the offender, the High Court is required to consider the antecedents of the accused; the conduct of the accused, namely, whether the accused was absconding and why he was absconding, how he had managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise etc.”

Applying the above guidelines to the instant case, the statements made by respondents No.2 to 4 recorded on oath in this Court, the status report filed by respondent No.1 and in view of the amicable settlement arrived at between the parties, no fruitful purpose will be served in continuing the proceedings in question. The present case because of its peculiar facts noticed above does not fall within the exceptions carved out by the Hon’ble Apex Court where amicable settlement arrived at between the parties cannot be acted upon for quashing the FIR and the consequent proceedings. The possibility of conviction in such circumstances would be very remote. The continuation of the proceedings will be to the great detriment of the petitioner causing him unnecessary harassment and injustice. When the complainant does not want to hold the accused person responsible, then quashing of such FIR would certainly be in the interest of justice.

Accordingly, the petition is allowed. FIR No.171/2020 dated 06.11.2020, under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Amb, District Una H.P. is quashed and consequent judicial proceedings are set aside.

The petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending application(s), if any.