Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 89 (UTT)

RESHAM SINGH v. S. S. P. UDHAM SINGH NAGAR

2015-02-27

U.C.DHYANI

body2015
JUDGMENT U.C. Dhyani, J.(Oral) An FIR has been lodged by respondent no. 3 against the petitioners under Sections 325, 504, 506 of IPC. 2. Compounding application, being CLMA no. 1982 of 2015, 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 Palwinder Singh (one of the petitioners) and injured-complainant Kulwant Singh (respondent no. 3). 3. Complainant-victim Kulwant Singh is present in person before the Court, duly identified by his counsel Mr. P.C. Petshali. He says that he is no more interested in prosecuting the petitioners, in as much as the dispute between the parties has been resolved amicably. He also stated that he may be permitted to compound the offences alleged against the petitioners. Petitioners are also present in person before the Court, duly identified by their counsel Mr. Harshpal Sekhon, who also affirm what is stated by the complainant-victim in the open Court. 4. All the offences alleged against the petitioners are compoundable offences within the scheme of Section 320 of Cr.P.C. (with the permission of the Court). 5. The only question which is left for consideration of this Court is whether the complainant -victim should be permitted to compound the offences alleged against the petitioners 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 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. 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-victim has settled the dispute amicably with the petitioners, therefore, he should be permitted to compound the offences complained against the petitioners in the interest of society as well as in the interest of justice. 9. Compounding application is allowed. As a consequence thereof, criminal writ petition is also allowed. FIR dated 11.02.2015, registered against the petitioners as FIR no. 26 of 2015, under Sections 325, 504, 506 of IPC, relating to police station, Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar is hereby quashed on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.