Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 955 (UTT)

Gopal Singh v. State of Uttarakhand

2016-12-09

U.C.DHYANI

body2016
JUDGMENT : U.C. Dhyani, J. 1. The writ petitioners, by means of present Writ Petition, seek to quash the Case Crime No. 62 of 2016, under Sections 3 (x) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the SC/ST Act’), lodged by respondent no. 2, at Police Station Kundeshwari, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar. 2. It is the submission of learned counsel for the parties that parties have already settled their disputes amicably and the Court has permitted to compound of offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 323, 307 and 506 of IPC in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1634 of 2016 vide order dated 08.12.2016. 3. It is also the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners as well as counsel for the private respondents that the offence punishable under Section 3 (x) of the SC/ST Act was left to be mentioned in the earlier writ petition and, therefore, the petitioners will not be able to get the desired result unless the petitioners are also permitted to compound the offence punishable under Section 3 (x) of the SC/ST Act. 4. Both the counsels are in unison that on bare reading of the First Information Report, no offence punishable under Sections 3 (x) of the SC/ST Act is prima facie made out against the petitioners in view of judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in Gorige Pentaiah vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, (2008) 12 SCC 531 . Learned counsel for the petitioners and respondent no.2 & 3 further submitted that even if the contents of the FIR be conceded to be true, no ingredients of Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act are prima facie made out against the petitioners, in the sense that informant nowhere said that the accused were not the members of SC/ST and they used those words intentionally in order to humiliate him (victim) in a place within the public view knowing it that he (victim) belonged to a community of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes. 5. Learned counsel for the parties prayed that since no offence under Section 3 (x) of the SC/ST Act is made out against the petitioners even on bare reading of contents of the first information report, therefore, they may be permitted to compound the said offence. 6. 5. Learned counsel for the parties prayed that since no offence under Section 3 (x) of the SC/ST Act is made out against the petitioners even on bare reading of contents of the first information report, therefore, they may be permitted to compound the said offence. 6. It will be useful to reproduce para 6 of Gorige Pentaiah’s (supra) case herein below for convenience: “In the instant case, the allegation of respondent No.3 in the entire complaint is that on 27.5.2004, the appellant abused them with the name of their caste. According to the basic ingredients of Section 3(1)(x) of the Act, the complainant ought to have alleged that the accused-appellant was not a member of the Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and he (respondent No. 3) was intentionally insulted or intimidated by the accused with intent to humiliate in a place within public view. In the entire complaint, nowhere it is mentioned that the accused-appellant was not a member of the Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and he intentionally insulted or intimidated with intent to humiliate respondent No. 3 in a place within public view. When the basic ingredients of the offence are missing in the complaint, then permitting such a complaint to continue and to compel the appellant to face the rigmarole of the criminal trial would be totally unjustified leading to abuse of process of law.” 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners also drew 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. 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. 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 question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.” 8. In view of the above, the both the parties are also permitted to compound the Case Crime No. 62 of 2016, under Sections 3 (x) of the SC/ST Act , lodged by respondent no. 3, at Police Station Kundeshwari, Kashipur District Udham Singh Nagar and the criminal proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed qua the writ petitioners. 9. Criminal Writ Petition No. 1650 of 2016 is thus disposed of. 10. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the Jailor, Sub-Jail, Haldwani with the direction to release the petitioner no. 2 if he is not detained in some other criminal case. 11. Let a copy of this judgment be supplied to the learned counsel for the petitioners today itself on payment of usual charges.