Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 499 (UTT)

Pawan Paladiya v. State of Uttarakhand

2016-08-20

U.C.DHYANI

body2016
JUDGMENT : U.C. Dhyani, J. 1. By means of application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant seeks to quash the impugned charge-sheet dated 31.08.2015 and the proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 94 of 2015, State vs. Pawan Paladiya, under Sections 324, 504, 506, 307 IPC, pending before 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Haldwani, District Nainital. 2. Compounding Application (CRMA No.1345 of 2016) is filed before this Court to show that the parties have settled their disputes amicably. The compounding application is supported by the affidavits of Pawan Paladiya (applicant herein), Udai Gupta (respondent no.2 herein) and Gaurav Gupta (respondent no.3). Udai Gupta (complainant), Gaurav Gupta (injured) and Pawan Paladiya (applicant) are present in person, duly identified by their respective counsel. Complainant & injured submitted before this Court that they do not wish to prosecute the applicant, inasmuch as they have settled their dispute amicably. They prayed that they 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 aforesaid criminal case be quashed. 3. Offences punishable under Sections 324 & 307 IPC complained of against the applicant are non-compoundable offences, while the offences punishable under Sections 504 & 506 IPC are compoundable offences within the scheme of Section 320 Cr.P.C. The question is – whether the complainant & injured should be permitted to compound such offences against the applicant or not? 4. 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. 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. 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. Learned counsel for the parties placed reliance upon a decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Dina Nath Prasad & others vs. State & another (Crl. M.C. No.111 of 2016) dated 12th January, 2016, wherein it was held: “While deciding whether to exercise its power under Section 482 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 be liberal in accepting the settlement to quash the criminal proceedings/investigation. 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 or the evidence is still at infancy stage, the High Court can show benevolence in exercising its powers favourably, but after prima facie assessment of the circumstances/material mentioned above. …………………..” 6. Learned counsel for the parties also relied upon the decisions of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in Rajendra Sharma & others vs. State of U.P. & another (C482 No.31751 of 2015) dated 18.11.2015 and Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in Satwinder Singh & another vs. State of Punjab & others in Crl. Misc. no.22608 of 2011 (O&M) dated 29.05.2012. 7. Since the complainant & injured have buried all their differences against the applicant, therefore, they should be permitted to compound the offences complained of against the applicant. 8. Compounding Application is allowed. As a consequence thereof, application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed on the basis of compromise between the parties. The impugned charge-sheet dated 31.08.2015 and the proceedings of Sessions Trial No.94 of 2015, State vs. Pawan Paladiya, under Sections 324, 504, 506, 307 IPC, pending before 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Haldwani, District Nainital are quashed.