‘Not heinous crime’: Why Himachal Pradesh High Court quashed drunk driving FIR against Assam Rifles soldier

Justice Sandeep Sharma heard the matter on March 5. (Image enhanced using AI)

Case of road accident

• The matter arose from an incident on April 1, 2025, when a vehicle driven by the petitioner rolled off the road near Chatrudu.
• Based on a complaint by the respondent, an FIR was registered at Police Station Sadar, District Hamirpur, under Sections 281, 125(a), and 125(b) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

• The initial complaint alleged that the accident resulted from rash and negligent driving and that a medical examination found the petitioner to be under the influence of liquor.
• During the proceedings, the parties informed the court that they had reached an amicable settlement.
  The complainant stated on oath that he entered the compromise voluntarily and clarified that he did not actually witness whether the petitioner was driving rashly or was intoxicated at the time of the accident.
• He stated that since the petitioner, as well as other injured, have recovered from their injuries, he does not wish to prosecute the case further.
• Representing the state, an additional advocate general, Rajan Kahol, submitted that in view of the statement made by the complainant, no fruitful purpose would be served in permitting the FIR.
• He further submitted that while passing an appropriate order, the court may take note of the fact that the petitioner was driving the vehicle under the influence of liquor, and in case no action is taken against him, he may cause harm to many persons in the future.
• Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Atul Verma argued that the petitioner was not under the influence of liquor; he had consumed liquor one day before the accident.

• He argued that the petitioner is presently serving in the Assam Rifles and is a disciplined soldier of the Indian Army, and if the instant prayer made on his behalf is not accepted, his entire career would be jeopardised.

‘Guidelines are clear for quashing proceedings’

• It would be relevant to take note of the judgment passed by the apex court in Narinder Singh, whereby the apex court has formulated guidelines for accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with a direction to continue with the criminal proceedings.
• Under Section 482 of the code (now Section 528 of BNSS), the high court has inherent power to quash criminal proceedings.
• Even in those cases that 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.
• Careful perusal of the Narinder Singh judgement suggests that such a power is not to be exercised in 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.
• Offences committed under a 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 based on a 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 relationships or family disputes, may be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves.