Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 396 (UTT)

Bheem Singh v. State Of Uttarakhand

2020-10-09

R.C.KHULBE

body2020
JUDGMENT R.C. Khulbe, J. - By way of present application, moved under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., applicants seek to quash the charge sheet dated 27.08.2018 and summoning order dated 03.12.2018 passed by the First Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee (Haridwar) in Criminal Case No.1781 of 2018, State Vs. Bheem Singh and Others. 2. The respondent-Vijay Kumar lodged an FIR against the applicants on 09.04.2018 at P.S. Manglore, District Haridwar with the allegations that marriage of his sister Sudha was solemnized with Bheem Singh on 14.05.2007 as per Hindu rites. Sufficient dowry was provided at the time of marriage. But after some time of the marriage the accused started to harass his sister for the demand of dowry and on 04.04.2018, the accused brutally beaten and caused injuries to Sudha. On the basis of the said information, the FIR was lodged on the very same day with P.S. Manglore, District Haridwar. 3. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted under Sections 498A, 323, 308, 506, 342 and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Accordingly, the concerned Magistrate took the cognizance against the applicants. Aggrieved by it, the present application has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for setting aside the cognizance order as well as the entire proceedings. 4. During the course of the hearing, learned counsel for the parties drawn attention of this Court towards the compounding application moved by the parties; according to which, an amount of Rs.9.00 lakh has been deposited before one Mr. Dinesh Panwar, who is the relative of informant, and it is argued that no case is made out under Section 308 IPC against the applicants. 5. Learned counsel for the private respondent submitted that it is true that he submitted an information with P.S. Manglour and on the basis of the said information, the FIR was lodged against the applicants. Now, a compromise has taken place between the parties and Rs.9.00 lakh has been deposited regarding one-time settlement, and his sister will get the same after completion of this proceedings. 6. Learned counsel for the State fairly submitted that it was a matrimonial dispute, and now the compromise has taken place between the parties, accordingly, the charge sheet as well as the entire proceedings may be quashed on the basis of the compromise. 7. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the entire record. 8. 6. Learned counsel for the State fairly submitted that it was a matrimonial dispute, and now the compromise has taken place between the parties, accordingly, the charge sheet as well as the entire proceedings may be quashed on the basis of the compromise. 7. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the entire record. 8. As per the FIR, the applicant demanded dowry from the sister of the informant. After investigation, charge sheet under Sections 498A, 323, 308, 506, 342 and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act has been submitted. But from the perusal of the medical report and other oral evidence, it is clear that no case is made out against the applicants under Section 308 IPC as no injury was found which would fall within the definition of Section 323 IPC. The learned Magistrate did not peruse the medical report and simply summoned the accused on the basis of the charge sheet submitted by the Investigating Officer while no case is made out under Section 308 IPC. 9. As regards to the other offences are concerned, the parties have filed a compounding application No.3566 of 2020 to show that the parties have buried their differences and have settled their disputes amicably. 10. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC are compoundable offences and offences punishable u/s 498-A IPC & u/s 3/4 D.P. Act are non-compoundable offences. 11. The Apex Court has dealt with the consequence of a compromise in regard to noncompoundable 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." 12. 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. 13. Hon'ble Supreme Court has permitted compounding of such offences in the decision of Nikhil Merchant v. CBI and another,2008 9 SCC 650 . 14. 13. Hon'ble Supreme Court has permitted compounding of such offences in the decision of Nikhil Merchant v. CBI and another,2008 9 SCC 650 . 14. 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. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. 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." 15. The instant case is squarely covered by the above ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The obvious reply to the question posed above is in the affirmative in view of the ruling of Hon'ble Apex Court in Gian Singh's case (supra). 16. Accordingly, compounding application is allowed. The entire proceedings pending before the court below, as mentioned in paragraph no.1 of this judgment, are hereby quashed qua the present applicants, on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties. 17. Present C482 application stands disposed of, as above. 18. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.