Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 368 (UTT)

Amit Verma v. State of Uttarakhand

2014-09-10

U.C.DHYANI

body2014
JUDGMENT U.C. Dhyani, J. 1. The petitioners, by means of present Criminal Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seek to quash the impugned F.I.R. No. 58 of 2014, under Sections 323, 498A, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar. The said FIR was lodged by respondent no. 3. 2. Compounding Application (CRMA No. 10150 of 2014) is filed before this Court to show that petitioner no. 1 Amit Verma and respondent no. 3 Neetu Verma have settled their disputes amicably. Petitioner no. 1 is the husband of respondent no. 3. The compounding application is supported by a settlement deed dated 16.07.2014 filed in the court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Ghaziabad. Victim-respondent no. 3 is present in person before this Court duly identified by her counsel Mr. Suhail Ahmad Siddiqui. The petitioner no. 1 is also present in person before this Court, duly identified by his counsel Mr. H.S. Dhillon. The victim submitted before this Court that she does not wish to prosecute the petitioner no. 1 (Amit Verma), who happens to be her husband, in as much as, they have settled their dispute amicably with the intervention of elderly members of victim’s family. Respondent no. 3 states that she is living peacefully with her husband. She prayed that she may be permitted to compound the offences alleged against the petitioners, the criminal writ petition be allowed and the proceedings of the FIR be quashed. 3. Since the compounding application has not been filed on behalf of petitioners no. 2 & 3, therefore, there is no question of granting permission to respondent no. 3 to compound the offences against the petitioners no. 2 & 3. 4. Whereas the some of the offences are compoundable offences within the scheme of Section 320 Cr. P.C. the other offences are non-compoundable offences. The question is – whether the victim should be permitted to compound such offences against the petitioner no. 1 or not? 5. The permission can be granted to the victim to compound the offences complained of against the petitioner no. 1 Amit Verma in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Narendra Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another, (2014) 6 SCC 466 . 1 or not? 5. The permission can be granted to the victim to compound the offences complained of against the petitioner no. 1 Amit Verma in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Narendra Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another, (2014) 6 SCC 466 . Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another, (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 160, has 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. 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 questions is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.” 6. Since the victim has buried all her differences against her husband, therefore, she should be permitted to compound the offences against the petitioner no. 1 (husband of the victim) in the interest of her family. 7. Compounding Application is allowed. The FIR no. 58 of 2014, under Sections 323, 498A, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar is quashed, qua petitioner no. 1 Amit Verma only.