Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 443 (UTT)

Harish Kumar Munjal v. State of Uttarakhand

2016-08-05

U.C.DHYANI

body2016
JUDGMENT : U.C. Dhyani, J. 1. The applicants, by means of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seek to quash the order dated 25.08.2015 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Session Judge, Rudrapur, U.S. Nagar in Criminal Revision No. 365 of 2013 as well as order dated 13.07.2011 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Case No.1185 of 2010 “State vs. Pragat Singh & Another” for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 IPC. 2. A Compounding Application (CRMA No.1225 of 2016) is filed before this Court to show that the parties have settled their disputes amicably. Purshottam Aggarwal (respondent no.2) is present in person before the Court, duly identified by his counsel, Mr. B.S. Bhandari. Harish Kumar Munjal and Ramji Lal (applicants) are also present in person before the Court, duly identified by their counsel, Mr. R.S. Sammal. Complainant/victim says that he is not interested in prosecuting the accused/applicants. 3. It is the submission of learned counsel for the applicants that they have been summoned to face the trial for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 IPC only. Although, the charge sheet was submitted for the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468 and 471 IPC also. 4. The offences under Sections 420 and 406 IPC are compoundable offences with the permission of the Court as per the scheme of Section 323 Cr.P.C., the others are not compoundable. 5. Learned counsel for the parties placed the reliance upon the judgments rendered by different High Courts i.e. (i) Judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Deena Nath Prasad & others vs. State & Anr., (ii) Judgment of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Rajendra Sharma and others vs. State of U.P. & another and (iii) judgment of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Satwinder Singh & another vs. State of Punjab & others. 6. The question is – whether the complainant/victim should be permitted to compound such offences against the applicants or not? The permission can be granted to the complainant/victim to compound the offences in view of the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dimpey Gujral vs. Union Territory through Administrator U.T. Chandigarh and others, 2013 (123) AIC 119 and Narendra Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another, (2014) 6 SCC 466 . 7. The permission can be granted to the complainant/victim to compound the offences in view of the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dimpey Gujral vs. Union Territory through Administrator U.T. Chandigarh and others, 2013 (123) AIC 119 and Narendra Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another, (2014) 6 SCC 466 . 7. 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.” 8. Since the complainant/victim has buried all his differences against the applicants, therefore, he should be permitted to compound such offences against the applicants in the interest of justice. 9. Compounding Application is, therefore, allowed. As a consequence thereof, application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is also allowed. The order dated 25.08.2015 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Session Judge, Rudrapur, U.S. Nagar in Criminal Revision No. 365 of 2013 as well as order dated 13.07.2011 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar, in Criminal Case No.1185 of 2010 “State vs. Pragat Singh & Another” in respect of the present applicants only for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 IPC, P.S. Rudrapur, District-U.S. Nagar are hereby quashed on the basis of compromise between the parties.