Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 219 (UTT)

RANI BALA AND FANI BALA v. DEEPA BALA

2013-04-26

U.C.DHYANI

body2013
JUDGMENT : U.C. Dhyani, J. Since both the applications under Sections 482, Cr.P.C. (Criminal Misc. Application No. 419 of 2013 and Criminal Misc. Application No. 1014 of 2011) are intrinsically connected with each other, hence they are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. The applicants by way of present applications u/s 482, Cr.P.C., seek to set aside the summoning order dated 19.7.2011, and also seek to quash the proceedings of criminal complaint case No. 1652 of 2011, captioned as Deepa Bala v. Fani Bala and Others, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 and 452, IPC relating to PS Sitarganj, District Udham Singh Nagar, pending before the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate, Khatima, Udham Singh Nagar. 2. A criminal complaint was filed by Deepa Bala against Fani Bala (husband), Moti Bala, brother-in-law (Dewar), and Rani Bala (mother-in-law), in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 452, IPC and Sections A3/4, Dowry Prohibition Act. After examining the complainant and the witnesses under Sections 200 and 202, Cr.P.C., the accused persons were summoned to face the trial in respect of the offences complained of against them. Aggrieved against the said summoning order, the applications u/s 482, Cr.P.C. were instituted before this Court. 3. Compounding application No. 560 of 2013 has been filed on behalf of the parties in C-482 Petition No. 419 of 2013. Similarly, a compounding application No. 545 of 2013 has been filed on behalf of the parties in C-482 Petition No. 1014 of 2011. 4. Complainant Deepa Bala is present in person, duly identified by her Counsel Mr. M.S. Bhandari. She says that she is residing with her husband Fani Bala in her matrimonial house. An amicable settlement took place between the parties and they have sorted out their differences amicably. Deepa Bala said that she is not interested in pursuing the matter and is not inclined to prosecute the accused persons/applicants. Fani Bala and Mati Bala are also present in person, duly identified by their Counsel Mr. M.K. Ray. 5. The offences punishable under Sections 323, 504 and 506, IPC are compoundable offences within the scheme of Section 320, Cr.P.C. Offences punishable u/s 498A, IPC and Sections A3/4, Dowry Prohibition Act are non-compoundable offences. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioners drew the attention of this Court towards the ruling of Gian Singh Vs. M.K. Ray. 5. The offences punishable under Sections 323, 504 and 506, IPC are compoundable offences within the scheme of Section 320, Cr.P.C. Offences punishable u/s 498A, IPC and Sections A3/4, Dowry Prohibition Act are non-compoundable offences. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioners drew the attention of this Court towards the ruling of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another (2012) 10 SCC 303 , in which Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as below: 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 u/s 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. 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 questions is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding. 7. The instant cases are squarely covered by the said ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The question is whether the victim (respondent) should be permitted to compound the offences complained of against the applicants or not and the obvious reply is in the affirmative in view of the rulings of Hon'ble Apex Court in B.S. Joshi and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Another, B.S. Joshi's case; 2003 (4) SCC 675 and Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another (supra). 8. CRMA No. 545 of 2013 and CRMA No. 560 of 2013 are thus allowed. As a consequence of the same, summoning order dated 19.7.2011 and all the proceedings pursuant thereto of the proceedings of criminal complaint case No. 1652 of 2011, captioned as Deepa Bala v. Fani Bala and Others, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 and 452, IPC relating to PS Sitarganj, District Udham Singh Nagar, pending before the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate, Khatima, Udham Singh Nagar are hereby quashed in terms of the compromise entered into between the parties, i.e. applicants and the respondent. Both the applications u/s 482, Cr.P.C. are thus disposed of in terms of compromise arrived at between the parties.