Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 670 (UTT)

A. K. Jha v. State of Uttarakhand

2013-10-23

U.C.DHYANI

body2013
Judgment U.C. Dhyani, J. By way of present application/petition, moved under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the applicants seek to quash the cognizance order dated 30.10.2009, in case no. 3344 of 2009, State vs. Dr. A.S. Tiwari and others, under Sections 420, 504 of IPC, as well as the charge-sheet dated 27.10.2009, filed against the accused-applicants, under Sections 420, 323, 504, 506 of IPC, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar. 2) Informant-respondent no. 2 lodged an FIR against the accused-applicants on 11.08.2009, in police station Gangnahar, Roorkee, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 323, 504, 506 of IPC. After the investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against the accused persons for the selfsame offences. Cognizance was taken on said charge-sheet and the accused-applicants were summoned to face the trial. Aggrieved against the same, the accused-applicants moved this application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 3) A compounding application CRMA No. 281 of 2013 is filed by the parties to indicate that they have settled their disputes amicably and have buried their differences. A joint compromise is also filed by the parties. Permission is sought by informant-respondent no. 2 to permit him to compound the offences complained of against the accused-applicants, in as much as the dispute has been settled amicably between the parties. It is further stated that informant-respondent no. 2 does not want to proceed with the criminal proceedings against the first party i.e. the applicants. An affidavit to this effect is filed by applicant no. 1. Affidavit is also filed by the informant-respondent no. 2 Amit Tyagi to affirm the contents of compounding application. Amit Tyagi has deposed in paragraph no. 2 of the affidavit that a compromise has taken place between the parties and the matter has been settled amicably between them. It is also indicated in paragraph no. 4 of the affidavit that the allegations levelled by the informant-complainant relate to his personal loss and, therefore, present case falls under the purview of Nikhil Merchant’s case. 4) Whereas the signatures of the applicant no. 1 are identified by Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir, Advocate, the signatures of the informant-respondent no. 2-victim (person cheated and assaulted) are identified by Mr. Mohd. Umar, Advocate. 4) Whereas the signatures of the applicant no. 1 are identified by Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir, Advocate, the signatures of the informant-respondent no. 2-victim (person cheated and assaulted) are identified by Mr. Mohd. Umar, Advocate. 5) Offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506 and 420 of IPC are compoundable offences within the scheme of Section 320 of Cr.P.C. The only question which is left for consideration of this Court is whether the victim (person cheated) should be permitted to compound the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC against the applicants or not? 6) Learned counsel for the applicants placed reliance on the ruling of Nikhil Merchant vs. C.B.I. and another, 2008 AIR SCW 7501. Paragraph 24 of the said judgment is reproduced below for ready reference:- “24. On an overall view of the facts as indicated hereinabove and keeping in mind the decision of this Court in B.S. Joshi’s case (2003) 4 SCC 675 ) and the compromise arrived at between the Company and the Bank as also clause 11 of the consent terms filed in the suit filed by the Bank, we are satisfied that this is a fit case where technicality should not be allowed to stand in the way in the quashing of the criminal proceedings, since, in our view, the continuance of the same after the compromise arrived at between the parties would be a futile exercise.” 7) Learned counsel for the applicants drew the attention of this Court towards the ruling of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 160 in which Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as below: “The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarized 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. 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 of 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 statues 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 proceedings 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.” 8) The offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC is compoundable offence with the permission of the Court under the scheme of Section 320 of Cr.P.C. The person cheated might have moved before the Trial Court for granting permission to him to compound the offence complained of against the accused, but still, since the matter is pending before this Court, such permission may be granted. 9) In view of the above, compounding application CRMA No. 281 of 2013 is allowed. Consequently, application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is also allowed. The cognizance order dated 30.10.2009, in case no. 3344 of 2009, State vs. Dr. A.S. Tiwari and others, under Sections 420, 504 of IPC, as well as the charge-sheet dated 27.10.2009, filed against the accused-applicants, under Sections 420, 323, 504, 506 of IPC, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar are hereby quashed on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.