Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 226 (UTT)

TEJPAL CHAUDHARY v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2015-04-22

U.C.DHYANI

body2015
JUDGMENT U.C. Dhyani, J. (Oral) 1. By means of present Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicants seek to quash the cognizance order dated 04.06.2014 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Complaint Case No. 273 of 2013, captioned as Smt. Ayushi and Varun Kumar and others, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 of IPC & Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, pending in the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate, Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar, Criminal Revision No. 193 of 2013, Varun Kumar vs. State and Criminal Revision No. 199 of 2013, Tejpal and others vs. State. 2. A compounding application being CRMA No. 660 of 2015 is filed by the parties to show that the parties have buried their differences and have settled their disputes amicably. The victim Smt. Ayushi is present in person, duly identified by her counsel Mr. Suresh Kumar Mishra, Advocate. Smt. Ayushi (victim) says that no grievance is left against the petitioners/applicants. She further says that she is not interested in prosecuting the applicants and seeks permission of this Court to compound the offences alleged against the applicants. Applicant no. 4 Varun Kumar is also present in person, duly identified by his counsel Mr. G.S.Sandhu, Advocate. 3. Whereas offences punishable under Section 323, 504 and 506 of IPC are compoundable offences within the Scheme of Section 320 Cr.P.C., the offences punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are not. The question, which arises for consideration of this Court, is- whether the respondent (victim) should be permitted to compound the offences against the applicants or not? 4. 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.” 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. 5. Learned counsel for the parties also drew the attention of this Court towards the ruling of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another, (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 160, in which Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as below: “The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised 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 or 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 statutes 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 proceeding 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.” 6. A reference may also be had to the decision of Narendra Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another, reported in (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 in this regard. 7. The reply to the question, posed by this Court in para no. 3 of this Judgment, therefore, is in the affirmative. Otherwise also, it will be a futile exercise if proceedings of the criminal case against the applicant are kept pending when the parties have settled their disputes amicably. 8. Compounding Application No. 660 of 2015 is thus allowed. As a consequence of the same, the cognizance order dated 04.06.2014 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Complaint Case No. 273 of 2013, captioned as Smt. Ayushi and Varun Kumar and others, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 of IPC & Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, pending in the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate, Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar, Criminal Revision No. 193 of 2013, Varun Kumar vs. State and Criminal Revision No. 199 of 2013, Tejpal and others vs. State, are hereby quashed against the applicants. 9. 9. Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is thus disposed of in terms of compromise arrived at between the parties.