Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 135 (UTT)

SUBE SINGH v. KAMAL KISHORE

2015-03-11

U.C.DHYANI

body2015
JUDGMENT U.C. Dhyani, J.(Oral) Applicants have been summoned to face the trial for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506, 427 of IPC in a criminal complaint case filed by the respondent. 2. A compounding application, being CRMA no. 375 of 2015, is filed by the parties to indicate that they have buried their differences and have settled their dispute amicably. Joint compromise has been filed annexing the affidavits of the applicant no. 1 Sube Singh and respondent Kamal Kishore. 3. Respondent Kamal Kishore is present in person before the Court, duly identified by his counsel Mr. Mohd. Alauddin, who stated that he is no more interested in prosecuting the applicants, in as much as a settlement has taken place between the parties with the intervention of some elderly persons of the family. Applicant no. 1 Sube Singh and applicant no. 2 Smt. Sharda, wife of complainant-respondent, are also present in person before the Court, duly identified by their counsel Mr. Manish Arora, who also affirmed what was stated by the complainant-respondent. 4. Offences punishable under Section 323, 504, 506, 427 of IPC are compoundable offence within the scheme of Section 320 of Cr.P.C. 5.The only question which is left for consideration of this Court is whether the complainant-respondent should be permitted to compound the offences complained of against the accused-applicants or not? 6. It will be useful to reproduce here 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. 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 question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.” 7. Considering the facts and circumstances as enumerated above, this Court is of the considered opinion that complainant-respondent should be permitted to compound the offences alleged against the applicants. 8. Compounding application is allowed. Consequently, the application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is also allowed. Summoning order dated 25.07.2013, as also the entire proceedings of compliant case no. 170 of 2013, Kamal vs Smt. Sharda and others, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 427 of IPC, relating to police station, Clementown, District Dehradun, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun are hereby quashed on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.