Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 434 (UTT)

Farida v. State of Uttarakhand

2016-08-04

U.C.DHYANI

body2016
JUDGMENT : U.C. Dhyani, J. 1. By means of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., applicants seek to quash the charge sheet dated 31.12.2014, cognizance order dated 02.05.2015 and Case Crime No.312 of 2014 under Sections 420,467 & 120B of IPC and entire proceedings of Case No.438 of 2015 titled as “State Vs. Smt. Farida & others pending before the learned Ist Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar. 2. A first information report was lodged by respondent No.2 against the accused applicants for the offences punishable under Sections 420,467 & 120B of IPC. A Compounding Application No.107 of 2016 is filed by the parties before this Court to indicate that the parties have settled their disputes amicably. Complainant/respondent No.2-Mohd. Kayyum is present in person before this Court, duly identified by his counsel Mr. Mohd. Umar, Advocate and some of accused-applicants are present in person before this Court, duly identified by their counsel Mr. Mohd. Allauddin, Advocate. Both have stated before this Court that they have settled their disputes amicably. Complainant/respondent No.2 further stated that he does not want to prosecute the applicants, inasmuch as, a compromise has taken place between them. Learned counsel for the parties prayed that they may be permitted to compound the offences against the applicants. 3. Whereas one offence is compoundable offence within the scheme of Section 320 Cr.P.C., others are not. The question, which arises for consideration of this Court is – whether the complainant/respondent No.2 should be permitted to compound the offences alleged against the applicant or not? 4. Learned counsel for the applicants drew 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 , Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another, (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 160 and Nikhil Merchant vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2008) 9 SCC 667 . Hon’ble Apex Court in Nikhil Merchant’s case (supra) held that Section 320 Cr.P.C. will not come in the way of High Court in exercising it’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In Gian Singh’s case (supra), Hon’ble Apex Court 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.” 5. Since the complainant/ respondent No. 2 has buried all differences against the applicants, therefore, he should be permitted to compound such offences against the applicants in the interest of justice. 6. While deciding whether to exercise its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. of the Code or not, timings of settlement play a crucial role. Those cases where the settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged commission of offence and the matter is still under investigation, the High Court may accept the settlement to quash the criminal proceedings. It is because of the reason that at this stage the investigation is still on and even the charge-sheet has not been filed. Likewise, those cases, where the charge is framed but the evidence is yet to start, the High Court can exercise it’s powers, but after prima facie assessment of the circumstances/material mentioned therein. This Court is of the opinion that this matter deserves to be given a quietus as continuance of proceedings arising out of the first information report in question would be an exercise in futility. 7. Reliance may also be placed on Deena Nath Prasad & others vs. State & Anr., decided by Hon’ble Delhi High Court on 12th January, 2016 in Criminal Misc. Case no. 7. Reliance may also be placed on Deena Nath Prasad & others vs. State & Anr., decided by Hon’ble Delhi High Court on 12th January, 2016 in Criminal Misc. Case no. 111 of 2016, Judgment rendered by Hon’ble Allahabad High Court on 18.11.2015 in C-482 Petition No. 31751 of 2015, Rajendra Sharma and others vs. State of U.P. & another and the Judgment rendered by Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court on 29.05.2012 in Crl. Misc. Case No. 22608 of 2011, Satwinder Singh & another vs. State of Punjab & others. 8. The instant case is squarely covered by the above ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The obvious reply to the question posed above is in the affirmative in view of the ruling of Hon’ble Apex Court in Gian Singh’s case (supra). 9. Compounding Application is, thus allowed. As a consequence of the same, the charge sheet dated 31.12.2014, cognizance order dated 02.05.2015 and Case Crime No.312 of 2014 under Sections 420,467 & 120B of IPC and entire proceedings of Case No.438 of 2015 titled as “State Vs. Smt. Farida & others pending before the learned Ist Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar are hereby quashed on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties. 10. Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is thus disposed of in terms of compromise arrived at between the parties.