FIR can be quashed under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure when the offence does not have social impact and amicable settlement is arrived between the parties: Himachal Pradesh High Court.

 Hig h C o urt of H.P on 15 02 CIS IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA ON THE 11th DAY OF FEBURARY 2022 BEFORE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTSNA REWAL DUA CRIMINAL MISC. PETITIONNO.76 OF 2022 Between: SH. ABHISHEK S O SHRI VIJAY KUMAR R O MARGHOONI POST OFFICE THURAI MALGHUNI KANGRA H.P. PIN 176107 AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS OCCUPATION: STUDENT. …..PETITIONER AND1. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH THROUGH SECRETARY 2. MRS. MEERA ALIAS NEELAM D O SHRI CHHATTE W O SH. SAHAJ RAM R O VILLAGE & POST OFFICE CHAUDHARYDIH DISTRICT BALRAMPUR UTTAR PRADESH. PIN 271207 AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS OCCUPATION HOUSEWIFE. .....RESPONDENTS __________________________________________________ This petition coming on for orders this day theCourt passed the following: Hig h C o urt of H.P on 15 02 CIS 2 O R D E R S The instant petition has been moved underSection 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing ofFIR No.209 2021 dated 29.12.2021 registered under Sections279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code at Police StationBhawarna District Kangra H.P. 2.I have heard learned counsel for the parties.3.Facts are that : FIR in question was registered on the basis of acomplaint lodged by Sh. Sahaj Ramto the effect that the petitioner while driving his motorcycle bearing Registration No. HP 36B 6033 in a rash andnegligent manner collided with respondent No.2 on the roadnear Mona Babu’s vegetable shop as a result of whichrespondent No.2 sustained injuries. As per the compromisedated 05.01.2022parties have amicably settledall the issues arising out of the FIR in question. The compromisealso records cordial relations of parties with each other and thatrespondent No.2 is not interested to pursue the aforesaid FIRany further. 4. The parties i.e. petitionerrespondent No.2(Meera alias Neelam) and the complainantare present in the Court and havebeen identified as such by their respective learned counsel. Byway of separate statements of the complainant and injured(respondent No.2) recorded today all the parties have stood bythe compromise. The parties have stated that compromise andsettlement of disputeis out of their free willand without any pressure fear or influence whatsoever. Learned Additional Advocate General has fairlysubmitted that he has no objection in case the relief prayed forin the petition is granted in view of the aforesaid compromiseand in view of amicable settlement of the disputes between theparties.5.The law laid down in respect of exercise ofpowers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedurefor quashing or for refusing to quash the FIR and resultantproceedings on the basis of compromise effected by theparties in10 SCC 303 titled Gian Singh vs. State ofPunjab 6 SCC 466 titled Narinder Singh vs. State ofPunjab 9 SCC 641 titled as Parbatbhai Aahir vs.State of Gujarat has been noticed again by Hon’ble ApexCourt in 5 SCC 688 titled as State of MadhyaPradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan with following observations: Hig h C o urt of H.P on 15 02 CIS 4“ 15 . Considering the law on the point and the otherdecisions of this Court on the point referred tohereinabove it is observed and held as under:15.1 That the power conferred under Section 482 ofthe Code to quash the criminal proceedings for thenon compoundable offences under Section 320 of theCode can be exercised having overwhelmingly andpredominantly the civil character particularly thosearising out of commercial transactions or arising outof matrimonial relationship or family disputes andwhen the parties have resolved the entire disputeamongst themselves 15.2. Such power is not to be exercised in thoseprosecutions which involved heinous and seriousoffences of mental depravity or offences like murder rape dacoity etc. Such offences are not private innature and have a serious impact on society 15.3 Similarly such power is not to be exercised forthe offences under the special statutes likePrevention of Corruption Act or the offencescommitted by public servants while working in thatcapacity are not to be quashed merely on the basisof compromise between the victim and the offender 15.4 Offences under Section 307 IPC and the ArmsAct etc. would fall in the category of heinous andserious offences and therefore are to be treated ascrime against the society and not against theindividual alone and therefore the criminalproceedings for the offence under Section 307 IPCand or the Arms Act etc. which have a serious impacton the society cannot be quashed in exercise ofpowers under Section 482 of the Code on theground that the parties have resolved their entiredispute amongst themselves. However the HighCourt would not rest its decision merely becausethere is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR orthe charge is framed under this provision. It would beopen to the High Court to examine as to whetherincorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sakeof it or the prosecution has collected sufficientevidence which if proved would lead to framing thecharge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose itwould be open to the High Court to go by the natureof injury sustained whether such injury is inflicted onthe vital delegate parts of the body nature ofweapons used etc. However such an exercise by theHigh Court would be permissible only after theevidence is collected after investigation and thecharge sheet is filed charge is framed and or duringthe trial. Such exercise is not permissible when thematter is still under investigation. Therefore theultimate conclusion in paragraphs 29.6 and 29.7 of Hig h C o urt of H.P on 15 02 CIS 5the decision of this Court in the case of NarinderSinghshould be read harmoniously and to beread as a whole and in the circumstances statedhereinabove 15.5 While exercising the power under Section 482of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings inrespect of non compoundable offences which areprivate in nature and do not have a serious imparton society on the ground that there is asettlement compromise between the victim and theoffender the High Court is required to consider theantecedents of the accused the conduct of theaccused namely whether the accused wasabsconding and why he was absconding how hehad managed with the complainant to enter into acompromise etc.”6. Applying the above guidelines to the instantcase I am of the considered view that the offences for which the petitioner has been accused in FIR No. 209 2021 cannotbe stricto sensu said to be the offences against the State orinvolving social impact. In view of the amicable settlementarrived at between the parties no fruitful purpose will beserved in continuing the proceedings in question the presentcase does not fall within the exceptions carved out by theHon’ble Apex Court when amicable settlement arrived atbetween the parties cannot be acted upon for quashing theFIR and the consequent proceedings the possibility ofconviction in such circumstances would be very very remote.The continuation of the proceedings will be to the greatdetriment of the petitioner causing them unnecessaryharassment and injustice. When the complainant does not Hig h C o urt of H.P on 15 02 CIS 6want to hold the accused person responsible then quashingof such FIR would certainly be in the interest of justice. Consequently the present petition is allowed and FIRNo. 209 2021 dated 29.12.2021 under Sections 279 and 337 ofthe Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station Bhawarna District Kangra H.P. and consequential proceedings arising outof it are quashed. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.Pending miscellaneous applications if any shall also standdisposed of.Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted toproduce copy of order downloaded from the High Court websitebefore the concerned authorities who shall not insist forcertified copy of the same however it may verify the order fromthe High Court website or otherwise. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Vacation Judge 11th Feburary 2022

Summary: FIR can be quashed when the parties have reached an amicable settlement and the alleged offence is not a act against the state or has a social impact is upheld by the Himachal Pradesh High Court through its single judge bench of Hon’ble Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua in the case of Sh. Abhishek v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Another (Criminal Misc. Petition No. 76 of 2022). The brief facts of the case that the petition is filled under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (quashing of FIR after compromise) for quashing of an FIR registered under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code. The FIR alleged that the petitioner while driving his motor cycle in a rash and negligent manner collided with respondent No.2 as a result of which she sustained injuries. The Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan, (2019) 5 SCC 688, held that the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character. Such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved 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. Applying the above guidelines to the instant case, the Court held that the offences for which the petitioner has been accused cannot be stricto-sensu said to be the offences against the State or involving social impact. The parties have stated that compromise and settlement of dispute is out of their free will and without any pressure, fear or influence whatsoever.  In view of the amicable settlement arrived at between the parties, no fruitful purpose will be served in continuing the proceedings in question; the present case does not fall within the exceptions carved out by the Hon’ble Apex Court when amicable settlement arrived at between the parties cannot be acted upon for quashing the FIR and the consequent proceedings. When the complainant does not want to hold the accused person responsible, then quashing of such FIR would certainly be in the interest of justice. Consequently, the petition was allowed and FIR and consequential proceedings arising out of it were quashed.