Back
2018 Supreme(HP) 1929
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J.
Sanjay Kashyap & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State Of H P & Anr. - Respondents
Criminal Miscellaneous (Main) No. 123 of 2018
Decided On : 27-09-2018
Suresh Kumar Thakur, Adv., R.P. Singh, Adv., Kunal Thakur, Adv.
The legal principle established was that heinous and serious offences should not be quashed based on a compromise between the victim and the accused, considering their impact on society.
Headnote:
FIR Quashing - Rash and Negligent Driving - Motor Vehicle Act - Section 279, 337, 338 IPC - Section 181 of Motor Vehicle Act
Fact of the Case:
The petition was filed to quash the FIR against the accused, who were involved in a road accident where they were driving their respective vehicles in a rash and negligent manner. The victims of the accident had compromised the matter with the accused and were not interested in prosecuting them further.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the nature and gravity of the offences, involving rash and negligent driving, were serious and had a significant impact on society. It held that the criminal proceedings against the accused needed to be taken to their logical end, despite the compromise between the victims and the accused.
Issues: The main issue was whether the FIR should be quashed based on the compromise between the victims and the accused, considering the nature of the offences and their impact on society.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the legal principles established in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Others versus State of Gujarat, emphasizing that heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape, and dacoity should not be quashed even if the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. It also considered the impact of the offences on society and the distinction between criminal cases with a civil dispute element.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the court held that there was no merit in quashing the FIR. The criminal proceedings against the accused were to continue, and the observations made in the judgment were confined to the disposal of the petition.
JUDGMENT
Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. - Learned Deputy Advocate General has placed on record the fresh status report and the I.O. ASI Anirudh of Police Station, Kangra has produced the record.
2. Petitioner No.1 Sanjay Kashyap herein is an accused in FIR No. 227/2017 registered under Sections 279, 337, 338 IPC and Section 181 of Motor Vehicle Act in Police Station, Kangra on 6.8.2017. He allegedly was driving Car bearing registration No. HP-39B-0538. His co-accused is respondent No. 2 Vijay Kumar who was on the wheel of the offending HRTC bus bearing registration No. HP-68-6286. Petitioners No. 2 to 4 herein are the victims of the accident. As per the investigation conducted by the police in this case both accused were driving their respective vehicles in a rash and negligent manner. The investigating agency has formed such opinion keeping in view the circumstances such as no skid mark etc. available on the spot during its inspection conducted by the I.O. immediately after the accident. The other evidence suggesting prima facie that they both were driving the car and offending bus in a rash and negligent manner has also been collected by the investigating agency. The challan stand filed and the case presently is at the stage of consideration of charge by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra, HP.
3. This petition has been filed on the grounds, inter alia, that the victims of the accident i.e. petitioners No. 2 to 4 have compromised the matter with both the accused and they are not interested to prosecute them any further.
4. As a matter of fact, in the case in hand the machinery has been put in motion not by the victims of the accident but by the police itself as the FIR has been registered on the basis of the rukka sent to police station by HC Raksh Pal, the Investigating officer of this case. Otherwise also, the Apex Court in Parbatbhai Aahir alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Others versus State of Gujarat and another , (2017) 9 SCC 641 has settled broad principles to be taken into consideration at the time of consideration of an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed with a prayer to quash the FIR/complaint/criminal proceedings by the High Court in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. The legal principles so laid down relevant for the purpose of this petition are reproduced as under:
"16.5. The decision as to whether a complaint or First Information Report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated; 16.6. In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences;
16.7. As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing in so far as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned;
16.8. Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute;
16.9. In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proc
