Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 611 (UTT)

RAIS v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2014-12-24

U.C.DHYANI

body2014
JUDGMENT U.C. Dhyani, J. (Oral) A charge-sheet has been filed against the applicants, who are in jail, for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 504, 506 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. 2. Compounding application, being CLMA no. 2056 of 2014, has been filed by the parties to indicate that they have buried their differences and have settled their dispute amicably. Said application is supported by the affidavits of Mobeen (father of the applicants) as well as Abdul Hameed (complainant) and Mohd. Haneef (injured). 3. It is Abdul Hamed (complainant/respondent no. 2), who set the criminal law into motion by lodging FIR. Complainant as well as injured are present in person before the Court, duly identified by their counsel Mr. P.C. Petshali. Both of them stated that they are no more interested in prosecuting the applicants, in as much as the dispute between the parties is resolved with the intervention of a few elderly persons of the society. They also stated that they may be permitted to compound the offences alleged against the applicants. Father of accused-applicants is also present in person before the Court, duly identified by his counsel Mr. Lalit Sharma, who also affirms what is stated by the complainant and victim in the open Court. 4. Whereas some of the offences alleged against the accused-applicants are compoundable offences within the scheme of Section 320 of Cr.P.C., Section 307 IPC is not. 5. The only question which is left for consideration of this Court is whether the complainant and victim should be permitted to compound the offences alleged against the accused-applicants or not? 6. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Dimpey Gujral vs Union Territory through Administrator U.T. Chandigarh and others, [2013 (123) AIC 119 (S.C.) and Narendra Singh and others vs State of Punjab and another, (2014) 6 SCC 466 *, has permitted compounding of such type of offences, which are otherwise non-compoundable, within the scheme of Section 320 of Cr.P.C. 7. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Dimpey Gujral vs Union Territory through Administrator U.T. Chandigarh and others, [2013 (123) AIC 119 (S.C.) and Narendra Singh and others vs State of Punjab and another, (2014) 6 SCC 466 *, has permitted compounding of such type of offences, which are otherwise non-compoundable, within the scheme of Section 320 of Cr.P.C. 7. It will also be useful to reproduce the law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 160, wherein it was observed, in the context of such cases, as under: “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. 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 question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.” 8. Since the complainant as well as victim have settled the dispute amicably with the accused-applicants, therefore, they should be permitted to compound the offences complained against the accused-applicants in the interest of society as well as in the interest of justice. 9. Compounding application is allowed. As a consequence thereof, application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is also allowed. Chargesheet dated 22.11.2014 and summoning order dated 24.11.2014, as also the entire proceedings of criminal case no. 2795 of 2014, State vs Rais and others, under Sections 307, 504, 506 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, pending in the court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haldwani, District Nainital are hereby quashed on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties. 10. Applicants are in jail. Since the pending criminal proceedings against them have been quashed by this Court, therefore, an information to this effect be given to the Superintendent of Sub Jail, Haldwani to release them, if they are not required to be detained in connection with any other crime.