CRMMO/355/2023 on 25 May 2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CrMMO No. 355 of 2023

Date of Decision: 25.5.2023 _____________________________________________________________________ Ramlingam Sambanth and Ors.

……...Petitioners Versus State of HP and Ors.

…....Respondents

Coram

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?

For the petitioners: Mr. Parav Sharma and Ms. Meena Devi, Advocates.

For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Rahul Thakur and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocates General, for the state.

Ms. Divya Pathania, Advocate, for respondents No.2 & 3.

___________________________________________________________________________

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

By way of present petition filed under Section 482 CrPC, prayer has been made by the petitioner-accused for quashing of FIR No. 7 of 2021 dated 16.1.2021, registered at Police Station Bharmour, District Chamba, H.P., under Sections 336 and 304-A of IPC alongwith consequential proceedings pending in the competent court of law.

2. Precisely the case of the petitioner, as emerge from the pleadings is that the FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings came to be lodged at the behest of respondent No.3 (hereinafter, ‘complainant’), who alleged that since September, 2020, he alongwith Deep Singh (driller), was working in MF Bhumi Geo Tech Pvt. Ltd, which was constructing Hydro Project in Chamba District. Complainant alleged that on 16.1.2021, while he alongwith driller Deep Singh was working in the tunnel, one boulder fell from the top on the person of Deep Singh (driller), as a result of which, he suffered multiple injuries. Complainant alleged that above named Deep Singh was taken to the hospital, but was declared brought dead. Since complainant named herein above, alleged that accident occurred on account of negligence of the officials responsible for working in the tunnel, FIR sought to be quashed came to be instituted against the accused. During investigation, police found that accused named in the FIR were responsible, in one way or the other, for providing safety measures to the workers in tunnel, but since adequate safety measures were not provided, person namely Deep Singh died on account of injury suffered by 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, petitioners-accused have approached this court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for quashing of FIR and consequential proceedings pending in the competent court of law

3. Pursuant to order dated 13.4.2023, respondent-State has filed status report under the signature of Superintendent of Police, District Chamba, H.P., wherein factum with regard to compromise arrived inter-se parties has been duly acknowledged. Alongwith the aforesaid status report, statement of Mr. Vineet Gupta, Advocate, Notary Public, Chamba, has also been recorded, wherein he has verified that he had attested the compromise arrived inter-se parties.

4. Respondents No. 2 and 3, namely Sumna Devi and Tara Singh have come present in the court and are duly represented by Ms. Divya Pathania, Advocate. Respondent No.3-complainant Tara Singh, states on oath that he, of his own volition and without any external pressure, has entered into compromise with the petitioners-accused, whereby parties have resolved to settle the dispute inter-se them amicably. He states that since accident in question did not occur due to rash and negligent act of the petitioners-accused coupled with the fact that FIR is a result of misunderstanding, he shall have no objection in case FIR alongwith consequential proceedings is quashed and set aside and petitioners- accused are acquitted of the charges framed against them. While admitting contents of the compromise to be correct, he also admits his signatures thereupon.

5. Ms. Sumna Devi, respondent No.3, states on oath that she, of her own volition and without any external pressure, has entered into compromise with the petitioners-accused, whereby parties have resolved to settle the dispute inter-se them amicably. She states that since she has received Rs. 30.00 lac as compensation and has been provided job on account of death of her husband coupled with the fact that FIR is a result of misunderstanding, she shall have no objection in case FIR alongwith consequential proceedings is quashed and set aside and petitioners- accused are acquitted of the charges framed against them. While admitting contents of the compromise to be correct, she also admits her signatures thereupon.

6. Having heard statement made on oath by respondents No.2 and 3, 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 petitioners. He further states that otherwise also, chances of conviction of the petitioners are remote and bleak, on account of statements made by respondents No. 2 and 3, as such, he shall have no objection in case prayer made on behalf of the petitioners is accepted and FIR in question alongwith consequential proceedings is quashed and set aside and petitioners are acquitted. .

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. Since parties have compromised the matter with each other and respondents No.3 has been duly compensated by the petitioners in terms of job provided to her coupled with the fact that 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 petitioners, this court sees no impediment in accepting the prayer made on behalf of the petitioners for quashing of the FIR alongwith all consequential proceedings.

13. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court (supra), FIR No. 7 of 2021 dated 16.1.2021, registered at Police Station Bharmour, District Chamba, H.P., under Sections 336 and 304-A of IPC, alongwith consequential proceedings is quashed and set aside. Accused is acquitted of the charges framed against him.

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

April 25, 2023

(Sandeep Sharma), (manjit)

Judge