Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 471 (UTT)

Om Prakash v. Rakam Singh Pradhan

2016-08-12

U.C.DHYANI

body2016
JUDGMENT : U.C. Dhyani, J. 1. By means of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant seeks to quash the summoning order dated 08.10.2012 and the proceedings of Criminal Case No.1872/2012, under Sections 323, 504, 403 IPC pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar. 2. Compounding Application (CRMA No.1309 of 2016) is filed before this Court to show that the parties have settled their disputes amicably. The said application is supported by the affidavits of respondent (Rakam Singh Pradhan) and applicant (Om Prakash), who are present in person, duly identified by their respective counsel. The respondent submitted before this Court that he does not wish to prosecute the applicant, inasmuch as a compromise has taken place between them. The complainant prayed that he may be permitted to compound the offences against the applicant, the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. be allowed and the proceedings of the criminal case be quashed. 3. All the offences complained of against the applicant are compoundable offences within the scheme of Section 320 Cr.P.C. The question is – whether the complainant should be permitted to compound such offences against the applicant or not? 4. The Apex Court has dealt with the consequence of a compromise in regard to non-compoundable offences in the case of B.S. Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana and another, (2003)4 SCC 675 and has held as below: “If for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necessary, Section 320 Cr.P.C. would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing. It is, however, a different matter depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case whether to exercise or not such a power.” 5. Thus, the High Court, in exercise of its inherent power, can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and Section 320 of Cr.P.C. does not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 6. Learned counsel for the parties drew attention of this Court towards the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in 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 . 6. Learned counsel for the parties drew attention of this Court towards the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in 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 its 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. 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.” 7. Since the complainant has buried all his differences against the applicant, therefore, he should be permitted to compound such offences against the applicant in the interest of justice. 8. Compounding Application is allowed. As a consequence thereof, application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed on the basis of compromise. The impugned summoning order 08.10.2012 and the proceedings of Criminal Case No.1872/2012 pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar are hereby quashed.