Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 584 (UTT)

HARJINDAR SINGH v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2015-12-19

U.C.DHYANI

body2015
JUDGMENT U.C. Dhyani, J. (Oral) 1. A charge-sheet has been filed against the applicant for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 504 of IPC. 2. Compounding application, being CLMA no. 1992 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 affidavit of Nanak Singh (complainant-respondent no. 2). 3. Injured Balvinder Singh as well as complainant Nanak Singh are present in person before the Court, duly identified by Mr. M.S. Bisht, Advocate, who say that they are not interested in prosecuting the applicant, in as much as dispute between the parties has amicably been resolved with the intervention of a few elderly persons of the society. Another injured Raju is also represented by Mr. M.S. Bisht, Advocate. It is the statement of learned counsel for the injured victim that he too is not interested in prosecuting the applicant as he has also settled the dispute with the applicant amicably. Accused-applicant Harjindar Singh is also present in person before the Court, duly identified by his counsel Mr. V.D. Bisen, who also affirms what is stated by the complainant as well as victim in the open Court. 4. Whereas offence punishable under Section 504 IPC is compoundable offence, within the scheme of Section 320 of Cr.P.C., Section 307 IPC is non-compoundable offence. 5. The only question which is left for consideration of this Court is whether the complainant and victims should be permitted to compound the offences alleged against the accused-applicant 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 victims have settled the dispute amicably with the accused-applicant, therefore, they should be permitted to compound the offences complained of against the accused-applicant 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. The proceedings of criminal case no. 105 of 2013, State vs Harjindar Singh, under Sections 307, 504 of IPC, pending before Juvenile Justice Board, Udham Singh Nagar are hereby quashed on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.