Vijay Anand vs State of Himachal Pradesh And Others

Vivek Singh Thakur, J.

The instant petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'CrPC') has been filed by petitionerÂaccused,

for quashing FIR No. 80 of 2014, dated 18th July, 2014, under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC')

registered at Police Station Nagrota Bagwan, District Kangra, H.P., and criminal proceedings initiated in pursuance thereto, on the basis of

compromise (Annexure PÂ​2), arrived at between petitionerÂ​accused and complainantÂ​respondent No. 2.

Respondents No. 2Âcomplainant, Shri Parkash Chand, present in person in Court, duly identified by counsel, endorses compromise, Annexure PÂ2

and in his statement, recorded on oath in this Court, has not only reiterated signing of the compromise by him with petitionerÂaccused with free

consent and will, without any coercion and pressure, but, also deposed to the effect that the accident had not occurred on account of rash and

negligent driving of accusedÂpetitioner. Complainant has deposed that though he was present on the spot, but he could not say with certainty that it

was rash and negligent act on the part of the petitioner, which resulted into the accident, however, on the basis of observation at that time and

information received from the passersÂby, who had seen the accident, he had drawn the conclusion that the accident had taken place on account of

rash and negligent act of the accusedÂpetitioner and accordingly, he had lodged the complaint with the police. However, later on, accused petitioner

had explained the manner in which the accident had taken place and in his opinion, his impression that the accident had taken place due to rash and

negligent act of the accusedÂ​petitioner was incorrect, therefore, he does not want to proceed with criminal proceedings against accusedÂ​ petitioner.

In pursuance to directions passed by this Court, Superintendent of Police, Kangra at Dharamshala, has also filed compliance affidavit and has

placed on record copy of the statement of PWÂ1 Sher Singh, s/o Jatt Ram, examined in the trial Court on the previous date. No other witness has

been examined yet. This witness has not supported the prosecution case and has been declared hostile. Perusal of his statement indicates that despite

lengthy crossÂ​examination, nothing material substantiating the prosecution case could be elucidated.

It is contended on behalf of respondent No. 1ÂState 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.PC.

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 CrPC with no statutory limitation including Section 320 CrPC, 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 CrPC 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 IPC is not compoundable under Section 320 CrPC. 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 CrPC is not inhibited by the provisions of Section 320

CrPC and FIR as well as criminal proceedings can be quashed by exercising inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC, it was 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, who is head of the victim family and also spot witness, has appeared in person in the Court and has endorsed the

compromise filed with petition duly signed by him and accused with free consent and will, without any coercion. His statement, recorded on oath in the

Court, does not disclose the rash and negligent driving of accused, rather reflects that even in case criminal proceedings are allowed to continue, there

is no probability of conviction of accused. It is also stated that the complaint was lodged by him on the basis of his observation and information

supplied by passersÂby, which now he feels not to be correct. He has categorically stated that in these circumstances, he is not interested to continue

with criminal proceedings against accused.

Offence in question 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 CrPC. In view of statement of respondent No. 2Â complainant, recorded on oath in this Court and also

statement of PWÂ​1 Sher Singh recorded in the trial Court referred (supra), probability of conviction is also too remote.

Considering facts and circumstances of the case in entirety, I am of the opinion that present petition deserves to be allowed for ends of justice and

the same is allowed accordingly and FIR No. 80 of 2014, dated 18th July, 2014, registered under Sections 279 and 337 IPC, at Police Station Nagrota

Bagwan, District Kangra, H.P., is quashed. Consequent to quashing of FIR, criminal Case No. 94 of 2014, titled State of H.P. versus Vijay Anand,

pending in the Court Judicial Magistrate (II), Kangra, District Kangra, H.P. also stands quashed.

Petition stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.