Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 906 (UTT)

Girdhari Lal Sahu v. State of Uttarakhand

2016-11-30

U.C.DHYANI

body2016
JUDGMENT : U.C. Dhyani, J. 1. Since the controversy involved in the above writ petitions is the same and the parties have settled their disputes amicably, therefore, all the three writ petitions are being decided together by this common Judgment for the sake of brevity and convenience. 2. By means of present writ petitions, the petitioner seeks to quash the FIRs dated 30.07.2016, 31.07.2016, 31.07.2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 506 of IPC, PS Kichha, District Udham Singh Nagar. 3. 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. 4. Compounding applications being CLMA No. 12355 of 2016, CLMA No. 12356 of 2016, and CLMA No. 12350 of 2016, CLMA No. 12351 of 2016, CLMA No. 12345 of 2016 and CLMA No. 12346 of 2016 have been filed by the parties, to indicate that they have buried their differences and have settled their disputes amicably. The victim Premwati (complainant/victim/respondent no. 3 in WPCRL No. 1595 of 2016), Dinesh Kumar (complainant/victim/respondent no.3 in WPCRL No. 1594 of 2016) and Babli Gangwar (complainant /victim/respondent no.3 in WPCRL No. 1596 of 2016) are present in person, duly identified by their counsel Mr. Kanti Ram Sharma, Advocate. They (complainants) say that they are not interested in prosecuting the petitioner Girdhari Lal Sahu and seek permission of this Court to compound the offences alleged against him. Petitioner Girdhari Lal Sahu is also present in person, duly identified by his counsel Mr. Arvind Vashisth, Senior Advocate. 5. Offences punishable under Sections 420 and 506 of IPC are compoundable offences within the Scheme of Section 320 Cr.P.C. The question, which arises for consideration of this Court, is-whether the victims in the above writ petitions should be permitted to compound the offences against the petitioner or not? Learned Dy. Advocate General has raised an objection that, prima facie, offence punishable under Section 467 IPC is also made out, which is not compoundable offence. 6. Hon’ble Supreme Court has permitted compounding of such offences in the decision of Nikhil Merchant v. CBI and another, (2008) 9 SCC 650. 7. Learned Dy. Advocate General has raised an objection that, prima facie, offence punishable under Section 467 IPC is also made out, which is not compoundable offence. 6. Hon’ble Supreme Court has permitted compounding of such offences in the decision of Nikhil Merchant v. CBI and another, (2008) 9 SCC 650. 7. 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.” 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. 8. 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 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 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. 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.” 9. 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 . 10. While deciding whether to exercise its inherent powers or not, timing of settlement play a crucial role. 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 . 10. 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. 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. 11. Reliance may also be placed in Dina 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. 12. The instant cases are squarely covered by the aforesaid decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and other High Courts. The obvious reply to the question posed in para 5 is in the affirmative in view of the ruling of Hon’ble Apex Court in Gian Singh’s case (supra). 13. In view of the above, the FIR No. 203 of 2016, FIR No. 204 of 2016, and FIR No. 205 of 2016 and under Sections 420 and 506 of IPC, lodged by respondent no. 3 in each of the above noted writ petitions, at Police Station Kichha, District Udham Singh Nagar, and the criminal proceedings emanating there from, are hereby quashed qua the writ petitioner. 14. Criminal Writ Petition Nos. 1594 of 2016, 1595 of 2016 and 1596 of 2016 are thus disposed of in terms of compromise arrived at between the parties.