Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 620 (UTT)

Sudesh Pal v. State of Uttarakhand

2016-09-22

U.C.DHYANI

body2016
JUDGMENT : U.C. Dhyani, J. 1. Since both the parties in the above noted writ petitions have settled their disputes amicably, therefore, both the writ petitions are being decided together for the sake of brevity and convenience. 2. The writ petitioners, by means of WPCRL No. 1276 of 2016 seek to quash the Case Crime No. 61 of 2016, under Sections 395 and 397 of IPC, lodged by respondent no.3, at Police Station Jhabharera, Roorkee, District Haridwar. Likewise, the petitioners of WPCRL No. 1277 of 2016 seek to quash the Case Crime No. 53 of 2016, under Sections 307, 324, 352, 504 and 506 of IPC, lodged by respondent no. 3, at Police Station Jhabharera, Roorkee, District Haridwar. 3. A compounding application being CRMA No. 9870 of 2016 has been filed by the parties in WPCRL No. 1276 of 2016, to indicate that they have buried their differences and have settled their disputes amicably. All the petitioners are present in person, duly identified by their counsel Mr. Tanuj Semwal, Advocate. Ravinder @ Fouzi (Respondent no.3) is also present in person, duly identified by his counsel Mr. Bharat Singh, Advocate. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that a compromise has taken place between the parties and hence, they have filed the compounding application. 4. Likewise, a compounding application being CRMA No. 9871 of 2016 has been filed by the parties in WPCRL No. 1277 of 2016, to indicate that they have buried their differences and have settled their disputes amicably. All the petitioners are present in person, duly identified by their counsel Mr. Bharat Singh, Advocate. Sudesh Pal (Respondent no.3) is also present in person, duly identified by his counsel Mr. Tanuj Semwal, Advocate. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that a compromise has taken place between the parties and hence, they have filed the compounding application. 5. Bharat Singh, Advocate. Sudesh Pal (Respondent no.3) is also present in person, duly identified by his counsel Mr. Tanuj Semwal, Advocate. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that a compromise has taken place between the parties and hence, they have filed the compounding application. 5. It will be relevant to quote herewith the observations made by Hon’ble Apex Court in Gian Singh v. 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. 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. 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.” 6. It will, therefore, be not possible for this Court to permit to Compound the offences under Section 395 and 397 of IPC in WPCRL No. 1276 of 2016. Cross version is under Section 307 of IPC. Ordinarily, this Court would have permitted compounding in such offence, but the fact remains that compounding in cross version has not been allowed and, therefore, it will not be appropriate to permit compounding under Section 307 IPC. Both the compounding applications are, therefore, dismissed. 7. Although, the offences complained of against the petitioners are not covered by Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and another, reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273 , but, since the private parties in both the writ petitions have settled their disputes amicably and compromise applications have been filed before this Court, therefore, this Court thinks that the following order should be passed. 8. 8. Since the dispute is settled between the parties, this Court, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties does not feel it convenient to permit to compound the offence under Section 307 of IPC, which is cross version of offence under Sections 395 and 397 IPC, therefore, although the offence complained against the petitioners entail punishment of more than 7 years, but considering the fact that parties have settled their disputes amicably, it is provided that the petitioners of both the above writ petitions (WPCRL No. 1276 of 2016 and WPCRL No. 1277 of 2016) should be arrested only when the Investigating Officer has reason to believe, on the basis of information and material collected, that they have committed an offence. Before making arrest, the Investigating Officer is required to satisfy himself that the arrest is necessary for one or more purposes envisaged by Sub-Clauses (a) to (e) of Clause (1) of Section 41 of Cr.P.C. It will not be based upon the ipse dixit of the Police Officer. In other words, the petitioners shall be arrested only when the conditions stipulated in Sub-Clauses (a) to (e) of Clause (1) of Section 41 of Cr.P.C. are satisfied. 9. Needless to say that the Investigating Officer of the case shall abide by the aforesaid directions of Hon’ble Apex Court, before affecting the arrest of the petitioners. 10. Petitioners are directed to contact the Investigating Officer of the case on 29.09.2016, and on such subsequent dates as may be instructed by him (I.O.) for interrogation and investigation. 11. It will be of no use keeping the present Criminal Writ Petitions pending for disposal, inasmuch as, the investigation is going on and ultimately, the investigation will come to its logical conclusion only under Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code either by a final report or by a charge sheet. Both the Writ Petitions are accordingly being disposed of at the admission stage itself with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.