Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 240 (UTT)

Hanif v. State of Uttarakhand

2016-06-06

U.C.DHYANI

body2016
JUDGMENT : U.C. Dhyani, J. 1. The applicants, by means of present criminal miscellaneous application filed under section 482 Cr.P.C., seek to quash: “(i) Charge-sheet dated 27.8.2015 submitted against them on the basis of compromise. Such charge-sheet has been submitted for offence punishable under section 147, 452, 323, 506 of I.P.C. and 3(1)(X) of SC and ST Act. (ii) Summoning as well as congnizance order dated 02.11.2015 passed by learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate Vikas Nagar, District-Dehradun in criminal case no. 568 of 2015 State vs. Hanif and others for the offence punishable under section 147, 452, 323, 506 of I.P.C. and 3(1)(X) of SC and ST Act. (iii) Entire proceedings of criminal case no. 568 of 2015 State vs. Hanif and others for the offence punishable under section 147, 452, 323, 506 of I.P.C. and 3(1)(X) of SC and ST Act pending before the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate Vikas Nagar, District-Dehradun.” 2. Victim Smt. Vimla Devi is present in person before the Court, duly identified by her counsel Mr. Virendra Singh Rawat, Advocate. Accused applicants namely Hanif, Imrana, Faizal and Furkan are also present in person duly identified by their counsel Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, Advocate. 3. Smt. Vimla Devi, informant-victim has submitted that she does not want to proceed against the applicants, inasmuch as the dispute has been settled amicably with the intervention of some elderly persons of the community. Vimla Devi also stated that no casteist remarks were used by the accused persons. It is the submission of learned counsel for the parties that casteist words have not been disclosed in FIR either. 4. It is the submission of learned counsel for the parties that even disclosure of those words would not have constituted offence under the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Learned counsel further drew the attention of this Court towards the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gorige Pentaiah vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others (2008) 12 Supreme Court Cases 531 in support of their contention. 5. Among other offences, some are compoundable offences within the scheme of Section 320 Cr.P.C., and some other are non-compoundable. 6. The question which arises for consideration of this Court is-whether the victim should be permitted to compound such offences against the accused-applicants or not ? 5. Among other offences, some are compoundable offences within the scheme of Section 320 Cr.P.C., and some other are non-compoundable. 6. The question which arises for consideration of this Court is-whether the victim should be permitted to compound such offences against the accused-applicants or not ? The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another (2013), 1 SCC (Cri) 160 comes to the aid of this Court, 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.” 7. A bare reading of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh’s case and host of other decisions will indicate that this Court in its discretion should permit the victim to compound such offences in the interest of justice. 8. Compounding application is therefore, allowed and, as a consequence thereof, charge-sheet filed against the accused-applicants is hereby set-aside on the basis of compromise between the parties.