Uttarakhand High Court
Rajesh Kumar And Others vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 29 August, 2017
Author: U.C.Dhyani
Bench: U.C.Dhyani
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Application No. 1155 of 2017
(Under Section 482 Cr.P.C.)
Rajesh Kumar and four others .............. Applicants
versus
State of Uttarakhand and another .......... Respondents
Mr. S.K.Mandal, Advocate, present for the petitioners/applicants.
Mr. Prem Kaushal, Brief Holder, present for the State/respondent
no.1.
Mr. Bhupendra Singh Koranga, Advocate, present for the respondent
no. 2.
U.C. Dhyani, J. (Oral)
By means of present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the applicants prays as follows:
"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously to allow this application and quash the Sessions Trial No. 130 of 2014, State vs. Dwarika and others, Case Serial No. 19/2013, FIR No. 181 of 2013, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504,506, 452 of IPC and Section 3 (I) (X) of the SC/ST Act, ROP Jhankaiya, PS Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar, pending before the Court of District & Sessions Judge, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar, to secure the ends of justice."
2. Present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. itself has been filed with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings 2 pending against the applicant on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties. Victim/injured/ complainant Jay Prakash (complainant), Bindu and Pushpa Devi (both injured) are present in person, duly identified by their counsel Mr. B.S.Koranga, Advocate. Victim Bindu and Pushpa Devi say that they have buried their differences and have settled the disputes amicably with the applicants. They further say that they are no more interested in prosecuting the applicants. They also say that they have resolved the disputes with the intervention of some elderly persons of the society and made a prayer to permit them to compound the offences complained of against the accused- applicants. Accused-applicants are also present in person, duly identified by their counsel Mr. S.K.Mandal, Advocate.
3. The question, which arises for consideration of this Court is- whether the victims/injured should be permitted to compound the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 452, 504, 506 IPC and 3 (I) (X) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 or not?
4. Learned counsel for the applicants 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 3 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."4
5. Learned counsel for the applicant and victim /injured /respondent no. 2 submitted that even if the contents of the FIR be conceded to be true, no ingredients of Section 3 (I) (X) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 are prima facie made out against the applicants, in the sense that informant nowhere said that the accused themselves were not a member of SC/ST and they used those words intentionally in order to humiliate them (victims) in a place within the public view knowing it that she (victim) belonged to a community of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes.
6. Learned counsel for the parties prayed that since no offence Section 3 (1) (X) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is made out against the applicants even on bare reading of contents of the first information report, therefore, they may be permitted to compound this offence. Both the counsels have placed a judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Gorige Pentaiah vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, (2008) 12 SCC 531 to argue jointly that no prima facie case under Section 3 (1) (X) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is made out against the applicants. It will be useful to reproduce para 6 of the Gorige Pentaiah's 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 5 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. This Court, therefore, is of the opinion that no offence under Sections 3 (I) (X) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is made out against the applicants and, therefore, the victims/injured may be permitted to compound the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 452, 504 & 506 of IPC including the one under the Special Act [Section 3 (I) (X) of the SC/ST Act], the ingredients of which are not made out. It will be advisable to permit the complainant/victims to compound the offences alleged against the applicants in the larger interest of the society.
8. Reliance may also be placed in Dina Nath Prasad & others vs. State & Anr., decided by Hon'ble Delhi High Court on 12th January, 2016 in Criminal Misc. Case no. 111 of 2016, Judgment rendered by Hon'ble Allahabad High Court on 18.11.2015 in C-482 Petition No. 31751 of 2015, Rajendra 6 Sharma and others vs. State of U.P. & another and the Judgment rendered by Punjab and Haryana High Court on 29.05.2012 in Crl. Misc. Case No. 22608 of 2011, Satwinder Singh & another vs. State of Punjab & others.
9. While dealing with the inherent jurisdiction, timings of settlement play a crucial role. Those cases where the settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged commission of offence and the matter is still under investigation, the High Court may accept the settlement to quash the criminal proceedings. It is because of the reason that at this stage the investigation is still on and even the charge-sheet has not been filed. Likewise, those cases, where the charge is framed but the evidence is yet to start, the High Court can exercise it's powers, but after prima facie assessment of the circumstances/material mentioned therein. This Court is of the opinion that this matter deserves to be given a quietus as continuance of proceedings arising out of the first information report in question would be an exercise in futility.
10. The reply to the question, posed by this Court in para no. 3 of this Judgment, therefore, is in the affirmative. Otherwise also, it will be a futile exercise if proceedings of the criminal case against the applicant are kept pending when the parties have settled their disputes amicably.
11. In view of the above, compounding is permitted. As a consequence thereof, charge sheet & the cognizance order passed by learned Sessions Judge, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar in Sessions Trial No. 19 of 2013, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504 ,452, 506 IPC and 3 (I) (X) SC/ST Act 7 and the proceedings of the said case on the basis of compromise entered into between the applicants and private respondents, are hereby quashed qua applicants.
12. Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is thus disposed of in terms of compromise arrived at between the parties.
(U.C.Dhyani,J.) 29.08.2017 Kaushal 8