Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 381 (UTT)

Raj Bhabaranjan Ghosal v. State of Uttarakhand

2016-07-22

U.C.DHYANI

body2016
JUDGMENT : U.C. Dhyani, J. By means of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners seek quashing of the Complaint Case No. 4456 of 2012, Vandana Ghosal vs. Raj Ghosal and other, pending in the Court of I Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun along with its summoning order dated 07.06.2013. 2. It is the joint statement of learned counsel for the parties that parties have settled their dispute amicably. In order to show the proof, the applicant has filed certified copy of the compromise filed before the family court, Dehradun, which has been enclosed as Annexure-1 to the compounding application. 3. The offence complained of against the applicant is under Section 406 IPC. Offence punishable under Section 406 IPC is compoundable with the permission of the Court under the Scheme of Section 320 Cr.P.C. 4. The question which is left for consideration of this Court is whether this Court should permit the victim (the owner of property in respect of which breach of trust has been committed) to compound such offence against the accused-applicant or not? 5. It will 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. 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 questions is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.” 6. The reply to the aforesaid question is, therefore, in the affirmative. The victim is permitted to compound the offence punishable under Section 406 IPC complained of against the accused-applicant in the interest of justice. 7. Compounding application no. 1104 of 2016 is allowed. As a consequence thereof, application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is also allowed. The reply to the aforesaid question is, therefore, in the affirmative. The victim is permitted to compound the offence punishable under Section 406 IPC complained of against the accused-applicant in the interest of justice. 7. Compounding application no. 1104 of 2016 is allowed. As a consequence thereof, application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is also allowed. Complaint Case No. 4456 of 2012, Vandana Ghosal vs. Raj Ghosal and other, pending in the Court of I Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun as well as Summoning order dated 07.06.2013 are hereby quashed on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.