Uttarakhand High Court
Harpal Singh And Others vs S.S.P on 23 August, 2014
Author: U. C. Dhyani
Bench: U. C. Dhyani
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
NAINITAL
Criminal Writ Petition No.834 of 2014
Harpal Singh and others ... Petitioners
vs.
S.S.P., Udham Singh Nagar & others ... Respondents
Mr. Lalit Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Kuldeep Rawal and Ms. Shiwali Joshi, Brief Holder present for the State.
Mr. S. Bhatt, Advocate for the respondents no.3.
U. C. Dhyani, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioners, by means of present Criminal Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seek to quash the impugned F.I.R. no.63 of 2014, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 323, 506 IPC, relating to Police Station Dineshpur, District Udham Singh Nagar.
2. A Compounding Application (CRMA No.9187 of 2014) is filed before this Court to show that the parties have settled their disputes amicably. Injured-Kanan Chakarwarti and informant- Deepak Chakarwarti (respondent no.3 herein) are present in person, duly identified by their counsel Mr. S. Bhatt. All the petitioners are also present in person before this Court, duly identified by their counsel Mr. Lalit Sharma. Both the injured and the informant submitted that they do not wish to prosecute the petitioners, in as much as, the dispute between the parties was resolved with the intervention of few elderly persons of the society. They pray that they may be permitted to compound the offences against the petitioners, the criminal writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India be allowed and the proceedings of the aforesaid FIR be quashed.
-2-3. Whereas the offences punishable under Sections 323 & 506 IPC are compoundable within the scheme of Section 320 Cr.P.C., the other offences are non-compoundable offences within the scheme of such Section (i.e. Section 320 Cr.P.C.).
4. The only question which is left for consideration of this Court is - whether the injured and informant should be permitted to compound such offences or not? The permission can be granted to them to compound such offences in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dimpey Gujral vs. Union Territory through Administrator U.T. Chandigarh and others, 2013 (123) AIC 119.
5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 160 has 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 of 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 statues like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in -3- 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 proceedings 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."
6. Since the injured and the informant have buried all their differences against the petitioners, therefore, they should be permitted to compound such offences against the petitioners for maintaining the peace in their community.
7. Compounding Application is allowed in the interest of justice. As a consequence thereof, criminal writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is allowed and the F.I.R. No.63 of 2014, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 323, 506 IPC, Police Station Dineshpur, District Udham Singh Nagar are hereby quashed on the basis of compromise between the parties.
(U. C. Dhyani, J.) Dated 23rd August, 2014 Rawat