Quashing of motor acciden

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

                  CRM-M No. 11657 of 2012 (O&M)

                 Date of Decision: February 15, 2013

Paramjit Singh

                                                         ...Petitioner

                               Versus

State of Punjab and others

                                                       ...Respondents


CORAM:     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI

Present:   Mr. A.K. Kalsy, Advocate,
           for the petitioner.

           Ms. Harsimrat Rai, DAG, Punjab,
           for respondent No. 1.

1.   To be referred to the Reporters or not?

2.   Whether the judgment should be reported
     in the Digest?


NARESH KUMAR SANGHI, J.

1. Prayer in this petition, filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C., is for quashing of FIR No. 141, dated 20.9.2007, under Sections 279, 304-A and 427, IPC, registered at Police Station, Ahmedgarh, District Sangrur, and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise.

2. Vide order dated 31.5.2012, the co-ordinate Bench had directed the affected parties to appear before the learned Trial Court on 11.6.2012 or any other date convenient to the Court for getting their statements recorded with regard to the compromise. The said Court was also directed to record the statements of both the parties to its satisfaction that the statements were genuine and not the result of any pressure or coercion in any manner. The Trial Court was also directed to send a report along with statements of the parties with regard to validity or otherwise of the compromise effected between them and also intimate whether any case was pending against either of the parties.

3. In compliance of the above, respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4, namely, Karamjit Singh, Karnail Kaur and Harpreet Kaur, and the petitioner, Paramjit Singh, did appear before the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Malerkotla, and got recorded their respective statements. The report along with copies of the statements has also been received from the said Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the matter has been compromised and the statements of the affected parties have already been recorded, therefore, the impugned FIR and all the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom may be quashed. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on the judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the cases of Shiji @ Pappu and others v. Radhika and another, 2012 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 9, and Dimpey Gujral v. Union Territory through Administrator, U.T. Chandigarh and others, 2013 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 745.

5. Learned counsel for the State submits that after thorough investigation, the charge-sheet (report under Section 173, Cr.P.C.) had been submitted for the prosecution of the accused. She further submits that after framing of the charges, few witnesses have already been examined. She has vehemently opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to quashing of the FIR, on the premise that the offence punishable under Section 304-A, IPC, committed by the petitioner is not personal in nature. She further submits that causing of death of a person is an offence against the society, therefore, the impugned FIR and the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, may not be quashed.

6. Heard.

7. The present FIR was registered on the basis of the statement of respondent No. 1, Karamjit Singh, who alleged that a day prior to the lodging of the FIR, he along with his father, Joginder Singh (since deceased), and maternal uncle, Malkiat Singh, went to village Kup Kalan for some domestic work. After completion of the work, Joginder Singh was coming back on his motorcycle, bearing Registration No. PB-13L-4826. He was ahead of the scooter, bearing Registration No. PB-66-1316, being driven by Karamjit Singh, on which Malkiat Singh was a pillion. When they reached near the bus stand of village Bhogiwal, then a truck bearing Registration No. PB-13N-3701, being driven by the petitioner, Paramjit Singh, in a rash and negligent manner, came from the back side of the complainant and hit the motorcycle being driven by his father, Joginder Singh. Resultantly, Joginder Singh received injuries and ultimately died. Therefore, the petitioner was booked for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 304-A and 427, IPC. After thorough investigation, the charge-sheet (report under Section 173, Cr.P.C.) was submitted and after framing of the charges, few witnesses have also been examined.

8. Since a person has died, it cannot be said to be a case of personal nature. Causing of death of another person is a crime against the society. The proceedings attracting the mischief of Section 304-A, IPC, cannot be ordered to be quashed on the basis of the compromise. The judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand. There is no second view with regard to the ratio of the judgments ibid that even in non- compoundable offences, the High Court can quash the FIR while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482, Cr.P.C., provided it comes to the conclusion that the chances of ultimate conviction and sentence are bleak and the offences alleged to have been committed are personal in nature and not against the society. It is apt to notice the observations made by their Lordships of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in para 57 of the judgment rendered in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another, 2012 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 543, which reads thus:

"57. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding." (emphasis added)

9. As a sequel to the above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that there is no merit in the present petition. Accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed.

                                         (NARESH KUMAR SANGHI)
February 15, 2013                                JUDGE
Pkapoor
 

Hope Mr.Agarwal is satisfied with the above judgement.

Hi,

You can find so many other judgements for the facts of the case you are looking for.

Surf the net.. you will find many.

Thanks - Mr. S.Shravan Kumar, Mr.SAINATH DEVALLA and 

Jurycon Incorporation

It purely depends on the prevailing circumstances and the compromises agreed between both.  The above mentioned citation is a good sample of settled law in this regard.