Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 339 (UTT)

Neeraj Kumar Chaudhary v. State of Uttarakhand

2014-09-01

U.C.DHYANI

body2014
JUDGMENT U.C. Dhyani, J. 1. The petitioner, by means of present Criminal Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeks to quash the impugned F.I.R. No. 195 of 2014, under Sections 420, 406 IPC and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, Thana Kotwali Nagar, Dehradun, District Dehradun. 2. A Compounding Application (CRMA No. 9609 of 2014) is filed by the parties before this Court to show that they have settled their disputes amicably. The said application is supported by the affidavits of petitioner and respondent no. 4. Learned counsel for the parties submitted that the parties have resolved the dispute amicably and respondent no. 4 does not wish to prosecute the petitioners, in as much as, a compromise has taken place between them. Learned counsel for the parties prayed that respondent no. 4 may be permitted to compound the offences against the petitioner, the criminal writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India be allowed and the proceedings of the aforesaid FIR number be quashed. 3. Some of the offences alleged against the petitioner are compoundable within the scheme of Section 320 Cr. P.C. while the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act is non-compoundable offence in the light of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another, (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 160. 4. Two fold submissions are made by learned counsel for the parties before this Court, viz. (i) since respondent no.4 had received the amount of mobile from the petitioner and the dispute has been resolved amicably, therefore, the FIR lodged by respondent no. 4 against the petitioner be quashed and (ii) even if the entire contents of the FIR be presumed to be true, no ingredient of any offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act is made out against the petitioner. The second submission of learned counsel for the parties finds favour from perusal of the contents of FIR. Even if the entire allegations made against the petitioner be presumed to be true, no element of the Prevention of Corruption Act, even prima facie, is made out. It appears that the said offence is fastened against the petitioner in the FIR only because he is a Sub-Inspector. Even if the entire allegations made against the petitioner be presumed to be true, no element of the Prevention of Corruption Act, even prima facie, is made out. It appears that the said offence is fastened against the petitioner in the FIR only because he is a Sub-Inspector. This Court is inclined to accept the submission of learned counsel for the parties that no offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act is, prima facie, made out against the petitioner. 5. The offences punishable under Sections 406 & 420 IPC are compoundable offences within the scheme of Section 320 Cr. P.C. The question is – whether the respondent no. 4 should be permitted to compound such offences against the petitioner or not? The permission can be granted to the respondent no. 4 to compound such offences in view of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nikhil Merchant vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2008) 9 SCC 667 and Gian Singh’s case (supra). 6. It is also be useful to reproduce the observations made by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh’s case (supra), which is as follows:- “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. 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 questions is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.” 7. Compounding Application is allowed in the interest of justice. It will be a futile exercise to continue with the criminal proceedings when the informant is not interested in prosecuting the writ petitioner. As a consequence thereof, criminal writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is allowed and the F.I.R. No. 195 of 2014, Thana Kotwali Nagar, Dehradun, is hereby quashed.