Uttarakhand High Court
Parvej vs State Of Uttarakhand on 6 December, 2021
Author: R.C. Khulbe
Bench: R.C. Khulbe
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No.219 of 2012
With
Compounding Application (IA No.4069 of 2021)
Parvej ...............Revisionist
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ...... Respondent
Mr. Sanjeev Singh, learned Counsel for the revisionist.
Mr. A. K. Sah, learned A.G.A. for the State
Mr. Mehboob Rahi, learned counsel for the private respondent.
Hon'ble R.C. Khulbe, J.
This criminal revision, preferred by the revisionist u/s 397/401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.), is directed against the judgment and order dated 22.10.2011 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar, in Criminal Case No.5090 of 2010, 'State vs. Parvej', whereby the court below convicted the revisionist u/s 406 IPC and sentenced him to undergo 1 year's imprisonment along with fine of Rs.1,000/-, u/s 419 IPC he was convicted and sentenced to undergo 3 years' imprisonment with a fine of Rs.3,000, u/s 420 IPC he was convicted and sentenced to undergo 3 years' imprisonment with a fine of Rs.3,000, u/s 467 IPC he was convicted and sentenced to undergo 5 years' imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5,000, u/s 468 IPC he was convicted and sentenced to undergo 3 years' imprisonment with a fine of Rs.3,000, u/s 471 IPC he was convicted and sentenced to undergo 3 years' imprisonment with a fine of Rs.3,000 and u/s 506 IPC he was convicted and sentenced to undergo 1 year's imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,000 as well as the order dated 11.09.2012 passed by the 3rd Addl. Session Judge, Haridwar in Criminal Appeal No.173 of 2011, 'Parvej vs. 2 State, whereby the Appellate Court has affirmed the sentence awarded to the revisionist, but set aside the sentence under Sections 406 and 419 IPC.
2. Brief facts of the present case are that the informant-Moti Lal submitted an information with police station Jwalapur. Accordingly, impugned FIR No.161 of 2010 was registered U/s 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 IPC. After the investigation, charge sheet was submitted; accordingly, cognizance was taken after giving necessary copies to the revisionist as provided under Section 207 Cr.P.C., statement of revisionist was recorded, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
3. On this prosecution got examined PW1 Moti Lal (informant), PW2 D.S. Bisht, PW3 Smt. Bhrama Rani, PW4 Brejlal Dhiman and PW5 SI Ganesh Malela.
4. Oral and documentary evidence was put to the revisionist under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in reply to which he alleged the same to the false but no evidence in defense was adduced.
5. After hearing both the parties, learned trial Court found that prosecution has successfully proved the charges under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 IPC against the revisionist and, accordingly, he was found guilty. On hearing the sentence he was sentenced for the offences as mentioned in para no.1 of this judgment. Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 22.10.2011 in criminal case No. 5090 of 2010 State vs. Parvej, the revisionist preferred criminal appeal no. 173 of 2011, 'Parvej vs. State whereby the leaned the 3rd Addl. Session Judge, Haridwar, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the lower Court order. Hence this revision has been filed.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
7. During the course of hearing both the parties were present before the Court and have filed a 3 Compounding Application (IA No.4069 of 2021) jointly to show that the parties have buried their differences and have settled their disputes amicably. It is also stated that the parties have entered into a compromise. The compounding application is supported by an affidavit which is duly verified by the parties. The informant was present before the Court on 15.09.2021; he made a statement that he has taken all the money from the revisionist; he does not want to pursue the matter. Learned counsel for the private respondent admitted this fact
8. The State has no objection for the same and fairly submitted that it is purely a private dispute between the parties.
9. It is contended by learned counsel for the writ revisionist that the offence punishable under Sections 420 and 506 IPC are compoundable whereas offence under Sections 467, 468, 471 IPC are non- compoundable.
10. The Apex Court has dealt with the consequence of a compromise in regard to non- compoundable 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."
11. 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.
12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has permitted compounding of such offences in the decision of Nikhil 4 Merchant v. CBI and another, (2008) 9 SCC 650.
13. Learned counsel for the parties also drew the attention of this Court towards the citation 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. 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 5 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."
14. The instant case is squarely covered by the above ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
15. Accordingly, in view of the compromise arrived between the parties before the Court, the compounding application is allowed. As a consequence thereof, the judgment and order dated 22.10.2011 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar, in Criminal Case No.5090 of 2010 'State vs. Parvej' as well as the order dated 11.09.2012 passed by the 3rd Addl. Session Judge, Haridwar in Criminal Appeal No.173 of 2011, 'Parvej vs. State, are hereby set aside in respect of the revisionist only, on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties. Accordingly, the conviction and sentences recorded by the courts below against present revisionist are set aside and is hereby acquitted. His bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged.
16. The criminal revision stands disposed of.
17. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.
18. A copy of this judgment and order along with the LCR be sent to the Court below.
(R.C. Khulbe, J.) 06.12.2021 BS