Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1240 (ALL)

Jamila v. State of Uttarakhand

2014-04-17

UMESH CHANDRA DHYANI

body2014
JUDGMENT Umesh Chandra Dhyani, J. 1. The applicants, by means of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seek to quash the Criminal Case No. 1504 of 2008, captioned as State v. Jameela and others, under sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 504 and 506 of IPC, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Vikas Nagar, Dehradun. A charge-sheet for the offences punishable under sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 504 and 506 of IPC was submitted against the applicants. Cognizance was taken on the charge-sheet. Accused persons were summoned to face the trial. Aggrieved against the same, present application under section 482 Cr.P.C. was filed by the applicants. 2. A compounding application has been filed by the parties to indicate that they have settled their disputes amicably. The parties are related to each other. Injured Nazeem is present in person duly identified by his Counsel Mr. M.A. Khan, Advocate, who says that he along with his bua (ant) and phupha (uncle) have compounded the offences alleged against the applicants. An affidavit of Smt. Jaitun, Naseem, Khatoon, Islam, Julphan, Nazeem, Sazida and Nazim are brought on record to affirm what is being stated by Naseem before the Court today. In other words, all the injured persons filed their affidavits to show that they have no grievance against the petitioners and have no objection if the proceedings pending against them before the Court below are set aside and quashed. One of the applicant namely, Mustaqueem is also present in person, duly identified by his Counsel Mr. B.S. Parihar, Advocate. He says that the injured persons have exonerated the accused persons with the intervention of some gentlemen of the community. 3. Offences punishable under sections 323, 504 and 506 of IPC are compoundable offences within the scheme of section 320 Cr.P.C. The other offences are non-compoundable offences. The question is-whether the victims should be permitted to compound the offences under sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 504 and 506of IPC against the applicants or not? 4. 3. Offences punishable under sections 323, 504 and 506 of IPC are compoundable offences within the scheme of section 320 Cr.P.C. The other offences are non-compoundable offences. The question is-whether the victims should be permitted to compound the offences under sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 504 and 506of IPC against the applicants or not? 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners drew the attention of this Court towards the ruling of Gian Singh v. 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 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. 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. 5. The instant case is squarely covered by the said ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The obvious reply to the question posed above is in the affirmative in view of the ruling of Hon'ble Apex Court in Gian Singh's case (supra). Hon'ble Apex Court also permitted compounding of offence punishable under section 307 IPC in the case of Dimpy Gujral v. Union Territory though Administrator U.T. Chandigarh and others 2013 (123) AIC 119 (SC) : 2013 (81) ACC 351 (SC). 6. Compounding Application No. 518 of 2014 is thus allowed. As a consequence of the same, the Criminal Case No. 1504 of 2008, captioned as State v. Jameela and others, under sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 504 and 506 of IPC, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Vikas Nagar, Dehradun are hereby quashed qua applicants. Application under section 482 Cr.P.C. is thus disposed of in terms of compromise arrived at between the parties.