JUDGMENT U.C. Dhyani, J. (Oral) 1. The writ petitioners, by means of present Writ Petition, seek to quash the impugned FIR No. 03 of 2014, under Sections 323, 504, 380 and 457 of IPC, dated 26.06.2014, lodged by respondent no. 3, at Police Station Patwari Circle Danya, District Almora. 2. A first information report was lodged by respondent no.3 against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 380 and 457 of IPC. A compounding application being CRMA No. 1283 of 2014 has been filed by the parties, to indicate that they have buried their differences and have settled their disputes amicably. The compounding application is supported by the affidavits of Naval Singh (petitioner no. 1) and Madan Singh (respondent no. 3) & Baguli Devi (respondent no. 4). Whereas Madan Singh is the informant of the case, Baguli Devi is the victim. Baguli Devi and Madan Singh are present in person, duly identified by their counsel Mr. D. C. S. Rawat, All the petitioners are also present in person, duly identified by their counsel Mr. Yogesh Pacholia. Respondents no. 4 (Baguli Devi) stated that the dispute with the petitioners has been resolved with the intervention of a few elderly persons of the locality. Baguli Devi seeks permission of this Court to compound the offence against the petitioners. She stated that she is not interested in prosecuting the petitioners. In other words, respondent no. 4 (the person aggrieved) has exonerated the present applicants. 3. Whereas offences punishable under Section 504 and 323 of IPC are compoundable offences within the Scheme of Section 320 of Cr. P.C., the other offences are not. The question is– whether the petitioner no. 4 (Baguli Devi) should be permitted to compound the offences complained of against the petitioners or not? 4. Perused the contents of the First information report. 5. Learned counsel for the parties 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. 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.” 7. 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). 8. In view of the above, the impugned FIR No. 03 of 2014, under Sections 323, 504, 380 and 457 of IPC, dated 26.06.2014, lodged by respondent no. 3, at Police Station Patwari Circle Danya, District Almora and the criminal proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed qua the writ petitioners. 9. Criminal Writ Petition No. 1023 of 2014 is thus disposed of in terms of compromise arrived at between the parties. 2014 (2) N.C.C. 620 UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT Hon’ble Mr. Justice U.C. Dhyani Criminal Misc. Application (C-482) No. 67 of 2013 TARAKNATH CHATTERJEE – Applicant Versus STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ORS. – Respondents Decided on : 29.08.2014 For the Applicant : Mr. Piyush Garg, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. V.K. Gemini, Dy. Adv. General with Mr. K.S. Rawal, Brief Holder For the Respondent No. 1 : Mr. H.M. Bhatia, Advocate Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Sec. 482 — Application under — Pleaded that the trial court be directed to pass the order afresh without being prejudiced by the observations made by learned Sessions Judge in his order dated 16.01.2013 — Held such innocuous prayer of applicant is, worth accepting, taking into consideration the background facts of the case — Thus, no interference — Application u/s 482, Cr.P.C., disposed of. (Paras 4, 5, 6) n.M izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973] /kkjk 482 & U/s 482, Cr.P.C. ;kfpdk & ;kpuk fd fopkj.k vnkyr dks funsZf’kr fd;k tk, fd l= U;k;k/kh’k }kjk fnukad 16-1-2013 dks ikfjr vkns’k ds voyksdu ls cxSj iwokZxzfgr gq, u, vkns’k ikfjr djus ds fy, & èkkfjr & okn ds rF;ksa ij fopkj ds ckn vihykFkhZ dh dfFkr gkfu u djus okyh izkFkZuk Lohdk;Z & bl izdkj gLr{ksi ugha & U/s 482, Cr.P.C. ;kfpdk [kkfjtA ¼izLrj 4] 5] 6½ JUDGMENT U.C. Dhyani, J.(Oral) By means of present application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the applicant seeks to quash the order dated 16.01.2013, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Dehradun, in criminal revision no. 161 of 2012, Income tax department vs State of Uttarakhand and others. 2. An FIR was lodged against the applicants and two others for the offences punishable under Section 120B, 201, 403, 411 of IPC. After the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 424 of IPC. The same was done during the pendency of present application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 3. Respondent Income Tax Department filed an application for release of Rs. 1,56,45,000/- in their favour. The money was allegedly recovered from the possession of applicant and two other persons. Learned Judicial Magistrate I, vide order dated 19.09.2012, did not find any valid ground to release the money in favour of Revenue and, therefore, dismissed the application of Income Tax Department. Aggrieved against the same, a criminal revision was preferred by the respondent Income Tax Department, which was decided by learned Sessions Judge, vide order dated 16.01.2013. The criminal revision filed on behalf of the Income Tax Department was allowed, order dated 19.09.2012, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the Judicial Magistrate to pass order afresh in the light of certain observations made by learned revision court in the body of its judgment. Aggrieved against the same, present application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is filed on behalf of the accused-applicant. 4. After much deliberations, learned counsel for the applicant confined his prayer only to the extent that the trial court be directed to pass the order afresh without being prejudiced by the observations made by learned Sessions Judge in his order dated 16.01.2013. 4. After much deliberations, learned counsel for the applicant confined his prayer only to the extent that the trial court be directed to pass the order afresh without being prejudiced by the observations made by learned Sessions Judge in his order dated 16.01.2013. Such innocuous prayer of learned counsel for the applicant is worth accepting, taking into consideration the background facts of the case. 5. No interference is called for in the judgment and order under challenge. Learned Judicial Magistrate is, however, directed not to be guided by the inferences drawn by learned revision court while passing a fresh order, according to law, after hearing both the sides. 6. With the direction as above, application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is disposed of.