Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 377 (UTT)

Varun Gaind (Male) v. State of Uttarakhand

2023-06-23

PANKAJ PUROHIT

body2023
JUDGMENT : The present C-482 application has been filed by the husband challenging the charge sheet dated 17.09.2021 as well as the cognizance order dated 17.09.2021, passed by the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Dehradun, in Criminal Case No.232 of 2022 State vs. Varun Gaind, whereby the applicant was summoned for being tried for the offence under Sections 323, 504, 506 and 313 of IPC. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The first information report was lodged by respondent no.3 i.e. FIR No.41 of 2021, dated 28.01.2021 at P.S. Kotwali, Dehradun under Sections 323, 504, 506 & 313 of IPC. The facts of the case as narrated in the first information report reveal that the applicant and respondent no.3 were married and subsequently they got separated by a decree of divorce dated 26.04.2017 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court Dehradun by mutual consent. After divorce now the applicant as well as respondent no.3 both have remarried and both of them also have baby out of their new wedlock. 4. In the present C-482 application accompanied with a compounding application, filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., it is submitted that owing to the personal settlement, which has been arrived at between them, respondent no.2-complainant does not want to prosecute the present applicant any further in relation to the offence under Sections 323, 504, 506 and 313 of IPC. 5. The parties now want to live peacefully and settle the dispute between them. 6. It is submitted by learned State counsel that Section 313 of I.P.C. is not compoundable in view of Section 320 of Cr.P.C. but this Court while exercising its inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has got wider power to compound even the cases which are non-compoundable under the Code of Criminal Procedure under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. 7. The Apex Court in a judgment reported in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SC 303 has held as under:- 57. 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. 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. 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 judgment of the Apex Court as quoted hereinabove, this Court finds it justifiable to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. in the given facts and circumstances of the case. There is nothing on record except bald statement to constitute the office described under Section 313 of IPC, no proof of pregnancy or any harm/death caused to the foetus or of causing miscarriage without the consent of respondent no.2 is there on record even to prove the offence under Section 313 of IPC prima-facie. In State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan and others (2019) 5 SCC 688 the Apex Court relying upon Gian Singh (supra) has held that:- “11.2 In Gian Singh (supra), in paragraph 61, this Court has observed and held as under: “61. 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 FIR may be exercised where the offender and the 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. 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 a serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and the offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like the 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 a 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, the High Court may quash the criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the 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 the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that the criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.” 9. The parties to the C-482 application are present through Video Conferencing. They have been duly identified by their respective counsels and this Court has interacted with the parties most particularly with the complainant-wife through Video Conferencing. The parties to the C-482 application are present through Video Conferencing. They have been duly identified by their respective counsels and this Court has interacted with the parties most particularly with the complainant-wife through Video Conferencing. The complainant has supported the Compounding Application and expressed her desire to live peacefully with her new nuptial cord. 10. In this view of the matter, since the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and they want to live peacefully with their respective families, no fruitful purpose would be served to continue with this litigation. 11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, since the dispute has been resolved between the parties in terms of the compromise, which has been referred to in the compounding application, the Compounding Application deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, Compounding Application is allowed. The entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.232 of 2022, State vs. Varun Gaind pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun initiated pursuant to the FIR No.41 of 2021 and Charge Sheet is hereby stand quashed. 12. The C-482 Application stands disposed of accordingly.