Uttarakhand High Court
Raju Aaditya And Another vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 6 February, 2018
Author: U.C. Dhyani
Bench: U.C. Dhyani
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Application (C-482) No. 143 of 2018
Raju Aaditya & another ....... Applicants
versus
State of Uttarakhand & another ....... Respondents
Mr. S.K. Shandilya, Advocate for the applicants.
Mr. G.S. Sandhu, Government Advocate assisted by Mr. S.S. Adhikari,
A.G.A. for the respondent State.
Mr. Mohd. Azim, Advocate for respondent no. 2.
U.C. Dhyani, J.(Oral)
Accused-applicants have been summoned to face the trial in respect of offences punishable under Sections 420, 417, 418, 406, 504, 506 IPC.
2) Compounding application, being CRMA no. 144 of 2018, has been filed by the parties to indicate that they have buried their differences and have settled their dispute amicably. Joint compromise has been filed alongwith affidavits of the parties.
3) Accused-applicants Raju Aaditya and Smt. Pinki are present in person before the Court, duly identified by their counsel Mr. S.K. Shandilya, Advocate. Complainant-victim- respondent no. 2 Harish Singh (person cheated) is also present in person before the Court, duly identified by his counsel Mr. Mohd. Azim, Advocate.
4) The complainant-victim-respondent no. 2 stated that he has no grievance left against the applicants, inasmuch as he has been compensated for the loss caused to him and the dispute between the parties has been resolved amicably with the 2 intervention of some elderly persons of the society. Complainant-respondent no. 2 further stated that he may be permitted to compound the offences alleged against the applicants. Accused-applicants also affirm what is stated by the complainant-victim in the open Court.
5) The only question which is left for consideration of this Court is whether the complainant-victim should be permitted to compound the offences alleged against the accused-applicants or not?
6) Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Nikhil Merchant vs CBI and another, (2008) 9 SCC 650 and B.S. Joshi and others vs State of Haryana and another, (2003) 4 SCC 675 has permitted compounding of such type of offences, which are otherwise non-compoundable, within the scheme of Section 320 of Cr.P.C.
7) It will also be useful to reproduce the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 160, wherein it was observed, in the context of such cases, as under:
"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, 3 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 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."
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 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) Since the complainant-victim-respondent no. 2 has settled the dispute amicably with the accused-applicants, 4 therefore, he should be permitted to compound the offences alleged against the accused-applicants in the interest of society as well as in the interest of justice.
10) Compounding application is allowed. As a consequence thereof, application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is also allowed. Charge sheet dated 26.02.2017, summoning order dated 03.08.2017, as also the entire proceedings of criminal case no. 2465 of 2017, State vs Raju Aaditya & another, under Sections 420, 417, 418, 406, 504, 506 IPC, pending in the court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar are hereby quashed only on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.
11) Urgency application no. 810 of 2018 also stands disposed of.
(U.C. Dhyani, J.) Vacation Judge 06.02.2018 Negi