Vikas Sharma vs State of HP and Another

Sandeep Sharma, J

By way of present petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., prayer has been made by the petitioner-accused for quashing of FIR No.98/2023 dated 26.11.2023, registered at Police Station Kandaghat, District Solan, H.P., under Sections 279 & 337 of IPC and Section 187 of Motor Vehicles Act, along with consequential proceedings pending in the competent Court of law.

Precisely, facts of the case, as emerge from the record are that the FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings came to be lodged at the behest of respondent No.2-Mr. Pushpender Verma (hereinafter, ‘complainant’), who alleged that on 26.11.2023, at about 5:25 pm, while he was going towards Shimla, driving his Scooty bearing No.HP-52-B-5705 and had reached above Modugil Hotel, NH-05, car being driven by petitioner came in a high speed and hit his scooty, as a result thereof, he suffered multiple injuries. He alleged that after accident, car driver fled away from the spot with the car. However, subsequently during investigation, it came to be transpired that car bearing No.HP-51-2463 being driven by petitioner, had hit the scooty being driven by complainant. Since complainant alleged that accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of car driver, case under Section 279 & 337 of IPC and Section 187 of Motor Vehicles Act, came to be registered against him. 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 15.06.2024, respondent/State has filed status report and ASI Sita Devi, IO, P.S. Kandaghat, District Solan has also come present along with record. Status report is silent with regard to compromise, if any, arrived inter se parties. However, respondent No.2-Pushpender Verma, who has also come present in terms of order dated 15.06.2024, and is being represented by Mr. Sahil Kumar, Advocate, states on Oath that he of his own volition and without any external pressure, have entered into compromise with the petitioner-accused, whereby parties have resolved to settle the dispute inter se them amicably. He further 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 states that since after accident, he has recovered from injuries, coupled with the fact that he was taken good care by the petitioner, while he was under treatment, he shall have no objection in case FIR along with 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 admitted his signatures thereupon. His statement made on Oath is taken on record.

Having heard statements made on oath by respondent No.2, 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 of the petitioner are remote and bleak, on account of statements made by complainant and the respondent No.2, as such, 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.

In the case at hand also, offences alleged to have been committed by petitioner do not involve offences of moral turpitude or any grave/heinous crime, rather same are petty offences, as such, this Court deems it appropriate to quash the FIR as well as consequential proceedings thereto, especially keeping in view the fact that parties have compromised the matter inter se them, in which case, possibility of conviction is remote/bleak and no fruitful purpose would be served in continuing with the criminal proceedings. Otherwise also, chances of conviction of the petitioner are remote and bleak, on account of statement made by respondent No.2.

Since parties have compromised the matter with each other and 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.98/2023 dated 26.11.2023, registered at Police Station Kandaghat, District Solan, H.P., under Sections 279 & 337 of IPC and Section 187 of Motor Vehicles Act, along with 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.