Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 168 (UTT)

AMIR AHMED v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2014-04-04

U.C.DHYANI

body2014
JUDGMENT U.C. Dhyani, J.(Oral) A charge-sheet was submitted against the accused-applicants for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 323, 324, 504, 506, 385 of IPC. Cognizance was taken on the said charge-sheet and accused persons were summoned to face the trial. Aggrieved against the same, present application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. was filed. 2. A Compounding Application, being CRMA No. 448 of 2014, is filed on behalf of the accused-applicants, through applicant no. 1; complainant/respondent no. 2 and injured /respondent no. 3 to indicate that they have buried their differences and have settled their dispute amicably. 3. Complainant/respondent no. 2 Talib and injured/respondent no. 3 Sajid are present in person before the Court, duly identified by their counsel Mr. A.U. Siddiqui. Applicant no. 1 Amir Ahmed is also present in person before the Court, duly identified by his counsel Mr. S.K. Shandilya. 4. All of them have filed a joint compounding application, duly verified by their respective counsel. Sajid (injured/respondent no. 3) stated that he is no more interested in prosecuting the accused persons, in as much as the dispute between the parties has been settled amicably with the intervention of a few gentlemen of the community. He prayed that he may be permitted to compound the offences complained of against the accused-applicants. It is further stated that the injured/respondent no. 3 and the complainant/respondent no. 2 have no objection if the criminal proceedings pending against the accused-applicants before the court below are set aside and quashed. 5. While few of the offences alleged against the accused-applicants are compoundable offences within the scheme of Section 320 of Cr.P.C, the others are not. 6. The only question which is left for consideration of this Court is whether the injured/respondent no. 3 should be permitted to compound such offences against the accused-applicants or not? 3 7. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Transfer Petition (Criminal) No. 115 of 2012, Dimpey Gujral vs Union Territory through Administrator U.T. Chandigarh and others, [2013 (123) AIC 119 (S.C.)] permitted the injured to compound the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 160, has observed that the 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. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 160, has observed that the 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. Relevant paragraph of Gian Singh’s case (supra) is reproduced here-in-under for ready reference: “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. 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. 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. Since the injured/respondent no. 3 has settled the dispute amicably with the accused-applicants, therefore, the injured should be permitted to compound such offences against the accused-applicants in the interest of society as well as in the interest of justice.5 9. Compounding Application CRMA No. 448 of 2014 is allowed. Consequently, the application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is also allowed. Charge-sheet dated 09.11.2013 as well as summoning order dated 04.02.2014, as also the proceedings of criminal case no. 1785 of 2014, State vs Amir Ahmed and others, under Sections 452, 323, 324, 504, 506, 385 of IPC, relating to police station, Kotwali, Manglore, District Haridwar, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar are hereby quashed on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.