Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 924 (UTT)

Boota Singh v. State of Uttarakhand

2016-12-06

U.C.DHYANI

body2016
JUDGMENT : U.C. Dhyani, J. 1. The writ petitioners, by means of present Writ Petition, seek to quash the FIR No. 257 if 2016, dated 30.08.2016 (Annexure-4) being Case Crime No. 42 of 2016, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 376 and 313 of IPC, lodged by respondent no. 3, at Police Station Bazpur, District Udham Singh Nagar. 2. Respondent no. 3 (victim) lodged an FIR against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506, 376 and 313 of IPC on 30.08.2016. 3. It is the submission of learned AGA that the investigation in this case is under progress. 4. Ms. Nirmal Kaur (reporter-victim/respondent no.3) is present in person, duly identified by her counsel Ms. Varsha Sharma, Advocate. Ms. Nirmal Kaur says that she has no grudge against the petitioners, inasmuch as, the matter has been amicably settled with the intervention of some members of the family. It is the submission of learned counsel for the parties that they may be permitted to compound the offences alleged against the petitioners. Petitioners Boota Singh, Smt. Manjeet Kaur and Balkar Singh are present in person, duly identified by their counsel Mr. B.S. Koranga, Advocate. 5. Both the parties prayed for permitting the victim to compound the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506, 376 and 313 of IPC against the petitioners. Such compounding cannot be permitted in view of the observations made by Hon’ble Apex Court in Gian Singh Vs. 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. 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. 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 Sections 376 and 313 of IPC. The prayer for compounding the offences is, therefore, rejected. 7. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners as well as respondent no.3 that there were property disputes, in which, the petitioners have granted respondent no.3 the right to residence and the property owned by her late husband has been handed over to her (respondent no.3.). The petitioners are closely related to the victim (respondent no.3) and, therefore, it will be appropriate to pass the following order in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice. 8. It is provided that the petitioners 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 14.12.2016, 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 Petition 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. The same is accordingly being disposed of at the admission stage itself with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.