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.
Judgement reviewed by: Paras Jindal
