Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 874 (UTT)

Sunil Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand

2016-11-23

U.C.DHYANI

body2016
JUDGMENT : U.C. Dhyani, J. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs, among others: “(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing and setting aside the impugned FIR dated 11.11.2016 (contained as Annexure -1) registered as Case Crime No. 65 of 2016, under Section 308 of IPC, P.S. Khanpur, District Haridwar. (b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents not to arrest the petitioner in Case Crime No. 65 of 2016, under Section 308 of IPC, P.S. Khanpur, District Haridwar till the pendency of present petition.” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State, learned counsel for the private respondents, perused the documents brought on record and considered the grounds taken up in the writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the both the parties stated that the parties have buried their differences and have settled their disputes amicably. Injured Vipul is minor. His father Mangeram (respondent no. 3) who is lodgeder of the FIR/complainant, is present is present in person, duly identified by his counsel Mr. B. M. Pingal, Advocate. He says that he has no grievance left against the writ petitioner and he is not interested in prosecuting the petitioner, inasmuch as, the dispute has been settled amicably between the parties with the intervention of some elderly persons of the society. In other words, respondent no. 3 (father of the minor injured) has exonerated the present petitioner. Petitioner Sunil Kumar is also present in person duly identified by his counsel Mr. Vivek Shukla, Advocate. 4. Offence under Section 308 of IPC is a non-compoundable offence within the Scheme of Section 320 Cr.P.C. The question, which arises for consideration of this Court, is- whether the respondent no. 3 (father of the victim) should be permitted to compound the offence under Section 308 of IPC alleged against the petitioner or not? 5. Vivek Shukla, Advocate. 4. Offence under Section 308 of IPC is a non-compoundable offence within the Scheme of Section 320 Cr.P.C. The question, which arises for consideration of this Court, is- whether the respondent no. 3 (father of the victim) should be permitted to compound the offence under Section 308 of IPC alleged against the petitioner or not? 5. Learned counsel for the parties also drew the attention of this Court towards the ruling of 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. The instant case is squarely covered by the said ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 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.)]. 7. A reference may also be had to the decision of Narendra Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another, reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 in this regard. 8. While deciding whether to exercise its inherent powers or not, timing 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 accept the settlement to quash the criminal proceedings. It is because of the reason that at this stage the investigation is still on and even the charge-sheet has not been filed. 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 accept the settlement to quash the criminal proceedings. 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, the High Court can exercise it’s powers, but after prima facie assessment of the circumstances/material mentioned therein. This Court is of the opinion that this matter deserves to be given a quietus as continuance of proceedings arising out of the first information report in question would be an exercise in futility. 9. Reliance may also be placed in Deena Nath Prasad & others vs. State & Anr., decided by Hon’ble Delhi High Court on 12th January, 2016 in Criminal Misc. Case no. 111 of 2016, Judgment rendered by Hon’ble Allahabad High Court on 18.11.2015 in C-482 Petition No. 31751 of 2015, Rajendra Sharma and others vs. State of U.P. & another and the Judgment rendered by Punjab and Haryana High Court on 29.05.2012 in Crl. Misc. Case No. 22608 of 2011, Satwinder Singh & another vs. State of Punjab & others. 10. The instant cases are squarely covered by the aforesaid rulings of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The obvious reply to the question posed in para 4 in the writ petition is in the affirmative in view of the ruling of Hon’ble Apex Court in Gian Singh’s case (supra). 11. In view of the above, the impugned FIR dated 11.11.2016 registered as Case Crime No. 65 of 2016, under Section 308 of IPC, lodged by respondent no. 3, at Police Station Khanpur, District Haridwar and the criminal proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed qua the writ petitioner. 12. Criminal Writ Petition No. 1548 of 2016 is thus disposed of in terms of compromise arrived at between the parties.