Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 427 (UTT)

Chandan Singh Bisht v. State of Uttarakhand

2016-08-03

U.C.DHYANI

body2016
JUDGMENT : U.C. Dhyani, J. 1. The applicants, by means of Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seek to quash the impugned charge-sheet no. 74/2015 and the proceedings of Criminal Case No.75 of 2015, under Sections 498A, 504 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate 2nd, Dehradun. 2. A Compounding Application (CRMA No. 871 of 2016) is filed before this Court to show that the parties have settled their disputes amicably. Perusal of the order-sheet reveals that when the parties appeared in person before the coordinate bench of this Court on 15.06.2016, the following order was passed: “Today, applicant No. 1 – Chandan Singh Bisht and respondent No. 2 – Smt. Saroj are present in person before this Court, who have given a joint statement that they do not want to continue criminal proceedings, arising out of the matrimonial discord, against each other, as both of them have arrived at compromise. They also submit that they had also moved an application under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Judge Family Court, Dehradun and decree of divorce has been granted in their favour by the court concerned.” 3. In other words, the parties have settled their disputes amicably and, therefore, the complainant does not wish to prosecute the applicants. It was prayed that she may be permitted to compound the offences against the applicants and the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. be allowed. 4. The offence punishable under Section 504 IPC is compoundable offence within the scheme of Section 320 Cr.P.C., while other offences are not compoundable offences. The question is – whether the complainant should be permitted to compound such offences against the applicants or not? 5. Learned counsel for the parties drew the attention of this Court towards the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Narendra Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another, (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. Manohar Singh’s case (supra) covers the case under Section 498-A IPC and Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 6. Manohar Singh’s case (supra) covers the case under Section 498-A IPC and Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 6. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another, (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 160, has observed as below:- “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. 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.” 7. Since the complainant has buried all her differences against the applicants, therefore, she should be permitted to compound such offences against the applicants in the interest of justice. 8. Compounding Application is, therefore, allowed. As a consequence thereof, application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is also allowed. The impugned charge-sheet no.74/2015 and the proceedings of Criminal Case No.75 of 2015, under Sections 498A, 504 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate 2nd, Dehradun are hereby quashed on the basis of compromise between the parties.