Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 47 (UTT)

Aneesh v. State of Uttarakhand

2016-02-03

U.C.DHYANI

body2016
JUDGMENT : U.C. DHYANI, J. 1. The applicant, by means of present application under Section 482 Cr. P.C., seeks to quash the proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 199 of 2015, State vs. Anneesh, pending in the Court of 1st Additional District Judge/Sessions Judge, Roorkee, District Haridwar, for the offence under Section 307 of IPC. 2. A compounding application being CRMA No. 131 of 2016 is filed by the parties to indicate that they have buried their differences and have settled their disputes amicably. An affidavit has been filed on behalf of father of the applicant (Aneesh) as well as Smt. Shahnuma (injured/complainant). Injured/victim Smt. Shahnuma is present in person, duly identified by her counsel, Mr. Mohd. Safdar, Advocate. She said that she has resolved her disputes with the intervention of some elderly persons and made a prayer to permit her to compound the offences alleged against the accused-applicant. Accused-applicant is reported to be detained in sub-jail, Roorkee. The applicant’s father Mr. Wahid is present in person, duly identified by the applicant’s counsel Mr. Gaurav Singh, Advocate. 3. The question, which arises for consideration of this Court is- whether the victim/injured should be permitted to compound the offence punishable under Sections 307 of IPC or not? 4. Learned counsel for the applicant drew the attention of this Court towards the ruling of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and Another, (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 160, 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. (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. 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 questions is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.” 5. 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). Hon’ble Apex Court also permitted compounding of offence punishable under Section 307 IPC in the case of Dimpy Gujral vs. Union Territory though Administrator U.T. Chandigarh and Others, 2013 (123) AIC 119 (S.C.). 6. A reference may also be had to the decision of Narendra Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab and Another, (2014) 6 SCC 466 , in this regard. 7. Compounding Application No. 131 of 2016 is thus allowed. As a consequence of the same, the proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 199 of 2015, State vs. Aneesh, under Section 307 of IPC, pending the Court of 1st Additional District Judge/Sessions Judge, Roorkee, District Haridwar, are hereby quashed qua applicant. 8. Since the applicant has been acquitted of the charge leveled against him on the basis of compromise, therefore, he is entitled to be released from the jail concerned if not required in any other case. The information to this effect be given to the Superintendent of Jail, Roorkee that if the accused in not required in any other criminal case, he should be released from the jail. 9. Application under Section 482 Cr. P.C. is thus disposed of in terms of compromise arrived at between the parties.