Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 375 (UTT)

Mohd. Usman v. State of Uttarakhand

2014-09-12

U.C.DHYANI

body2014
JUDGMENT U.C. Dhyani, J. 1. Since the aforesaid applications under Section 482 Cr. P.C arise out of the same chargesheet and summoning order, therefore, both cases are being decided by this common judgment for the sake of brevity and convenience. 2. The accused-applicants were summoned to face the trial for the offences punishable under Section 498A, 504, 506 IPC and Section ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act, vide order dated 15.01.2014. Aggrieved against the same, present applications under Section 482 Cr. P.C. were filed by the accused-applicants. 3. Compounding Applications (CRMA No. 1377 of 2014 & 1384 of 2014) have been filed before this Court to show that the parties have settled their disputes amicably. Both the compounding applications are supported by the affidavit of Smt. Sumayala victim (respondent no. 2 herein), applicant-Mohd. Suleman (in C482 no. 1114 of 2014) and applicant-Mohd. Usman (in C482 no. 837 of 2014). According to the affidavits filed in support of the compounding applications, the complainant has entered into the compromise with the applicants and, therefore, the criminal proceedings against the applicants be quashed. Victim Smt. Sumayala is present in person before this Court, duly identified by her counsel Mr. Lalit Sharma. The victim submitted before this Court that she does not wish to prosecute the applicants, in as much as, they have settled their dispute amicably with the intervention of elderly persons of their family. Respondent no. 2 further stated that since her husband Mohd. Suleman has given her talaq and has re-married to someone, hence there is no question of living with him. She states that her 2 years old child is living with her in her parental home. The complainant prayed that she may be permitted to compound the offences against the applicants, the applications under Section 482 Cr. P.C. be allowed and the proceedings of the criminal case be quashed. 4. Some of the offences complained of against the applicants are compoundable offences within the scheme of Section 320 Cr. P.C. while other offences are not compoundable offences. The question is – whether the victim should be permitted to compound such offences against the applicants or not? 5. P.C. be allowed and the proceedings of the criminal case be quashed. 4. Some of the offences complained of against the applicants are compoundable offences within the scheme of Section 320 Cr. P.C. while other offences are not compoundable offences. The question is – whether the victim should be permitted to compound such offences against the applicants or not? 5. The Apex Court has dealt with the consequence of a compromise in regard to non-compoundable offences in the case of B.S. Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana and another, (2003) 4 SCC 675 and has held as below:- “If for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necessary, Section 320 Cr. P.C. would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing. It is, however, a different matter depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case whether to exercise or not such a power.” 6. Thus, the High Court, in exercise of its inherent power, can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and Section 320 of Cr. P.C. does not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 7. Learned counsel for the parties drew attention of this Court towards the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Narendra Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another, (2014) 6 SCC 466 and Manohar Singh vs. State of M.P. and another decided on 21.07.2014 in Criminal Appeal No. 1498 of 2014. Manohar Singh’s case (supra) covers the case under Section 498-A IPC and Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 8. Reliance is also placed upon the pronouncement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another, (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 160, wherein Hon’ble Apex Court 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. 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. 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.” 9. Since the victim has buried all her differences against the applicants, who happen to be her ex-husband, ex-brother-in-law and ex-mother-in-law, therefore, she should be permitted to compound such offences against the applicants in the interest of society. 10. Compounding Applications are allowed. As a consequence thereof, applications under Section 482 Cr. P.C. are allowed on the basis of compromise between the parties. The impugned chargesheet, summoning order dated 15.01.2014 and the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 215 of 2014 pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haldwani, District Nainital are quashed.