Jasveer Singh v. State of H.P. & Ors.

respective parties, are that the FIR, sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings, came to be lodged at the behest of respondent No.2, namely Sh. Kuldeep Kumar (hereinafter referred to as the complainant), who alleged that on 28.10.2022, at about 8:25 A.M., while he was proceeding towards his shop from his house, he noticed a boy, who was sitting on the roof of a bus, falling down on the road from the moving bus, as a result of which, said boy suffered injuries. He alleged that after the accident, the driver of the bus fled away from the spot and stopped the vehicle at a distance of about half a kilometer ahead of the place of occurrence. In the aforesaid background, FIR, sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings, came to be lodged against the petitioners. Though, after completion of the investigation, police presented the challan in the competent Court of law, but before same could be taken to its logical end, parties have entered into compromise, whereby they have resolved to settle the dispute amicably inter se them. In the aforesaid background, petitioners have approached this Court in the instant proceedings for quashing of FIR as well as consequential proceedings pending the competent Court of law. 3

3. Despite sufficient opportunities, respondent-State has failed to file the status report. However, respondent No.2/complainant Kuldeep Kumar as well as respondent No.3/injured namely, Akshay Sharma (minor), have come present in Court alongwith with his father and natural guardian, Sh. Ravi Dutt Sharma, and are being represented by Ms. Shailja Thakur, Advocate.

4. Respondent/complainant, namely Sh. Kuldeep Kumar, states on oath before this Court that he of his own volition and without there being any external pressure has entered into the compromise with the petitioners, whereby both the parties have resolved to settle their dispute amicably inter se them. He states that FIR, sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings, is result of misunderstanding, because accident did not occur on account of rash and negligent driving of the petitioners, rather accident had occurred on account of negligence of injured. He states that since respondent No.3/injured has already recovered from the injuries suffered by him, coupled with the fact that petitioners have undertaken to be more careful in future, he does not wish to prosecute the case further and shall have no objection in case prayer made on behalf of petitioners for quashing of the FIR as well as consequent proceedings, if any, pending adjudication in the competent Court of law, is accepted and petitioners-accused are acquitted of the charges framed against them. While admitting the contents of the compromise placed on record to 4 be correct, he also admits his signature upon the same. His statement is taken on record.

5. Sh. Ravi Dutt Sharma, on behalf of his minor son, namely Akshay Sharma, also states on oath before this Court that he of his own volition and without there being any external pressure has entered into the compromise with the petitioners on behalf of his son, whereby they have resolved to settle their dispute amicably interse them. He states that FIR, sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings, is result of misunderstanding, because accident did not occur on account of rash and negligent driving of the petitioners, rather on account of error of judgment. He states that since his minor son has already recovered from the injuries suffered by him in the accident, he does not wish to prosecute the case further and shall have no objection in case the prayer made in the petition is allowed and petitioners-accused are acquitted of the offences alleged in the FIR.

6. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, after having heard the aforesaid statements made by respondent No.2/complainant and the father of the injured, fairly states that no fruitful purpose would be served in case FIR as well as consequent proceedings, sought to be quashed, are allowed to sustain. He further states that otherwise also, chances of conviction of petitioners- accused are very remote and bleak in view of the statements made by 5 respondent No. 2 and the father of the injured and as such, respondent-State shall have no objection in case the prayer made in the petition is allowed.

7. True, it is that in the case at hand, injured is minor and as such, question which needs determination is, whether father of the injured is competent to enter into the compromise on his behalf or not?. Section 320(4) of Cr.P.C clearly provides that when the person, who would otherwise be competent to compound an offence under this section is under the age of eighteen years or is an idiot or a lunatic, any person competent to contract on his behalf may, with the permission of the Court compound the offence. Since injured in the instant case is minor and petitioners herein have been charged under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC, father of the injured is competent to enter into the compromise on his behalf, especially when same appears to be in the interest of the minor.

8. The question which now needs consideration is whether FIR’s 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., since such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. 6

9. 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.

10. 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 7 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. Aforesaid view taken by Hon'ble Apex Court has been further reiterated in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and anr. (2012) 10 SCC 303.

11. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case Gian Singh supra 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 to compound the offences under Section 320 Cr.P.C. 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.P.C 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 8 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.

12. 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.

13. 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 the petitioners and respondent No.2/ complainant and father of the injured have compromised the matter interse them, in which case, possibility of conviction is remote and no fruitful purpose would be served in continuing with the criminal proceedings.

14. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Narinder Singh 9 (supra), No. FIR No.142 of 2022, dated 28.10.2022, under Sections 279, 337 of IPC and Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, registered at Police Station, Nadaun, District Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh as well as consequential proceedings pending adjudication in the competent Court of law, are quashed and set aside. Accused are acquitted of the charges framed against them.

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

16. June 01,2026 (shankar) (Sandeep Sharma), Judge