Uttarakhand High Court
Mustafa vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 21 March, 2017
Author: U. C. Dhyani
Bench: U. C. Dhyani
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Application No. 376 of 2017
(Under Section 482 of Cr.P.C)
Mustafa ... .Applicant
vs.
State of Uttarakhand and another ... Respondents
Ms. Lata Negi, Advocate present for the applicant.
Mr. R.K. Sah, Deputy Advocate General present for the State/respondent no.1.
Ms. Neetu Singh, Advocate for the respondent no.2.
U. C. Dhyani, J. (Oral)
1. The applicant, by means of Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeks to quash the entire criminal proceedings of S.T No.222 of 2016, pending before learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Haridwar arising out of Case Crime No. 92/2016 registered under Sections 307, 323 and 326A of I.P.C at P.S Kotwali Pathri, District Haridwar.
2. A Compounding Application (CRMA No.403 of 2017) has been filed before this Court to show that the parties have settled their disputes amicably. Applicant-accused is in jail, while co-accused Sanavar is present in person before this Court duly identified by his counsel Ms. Neetu Singh. It is brought to the notice of this Court that a chargesheet has been submitted against the applicant-accused, while co- accused Sanavvar, who is the son of present applicant, has been exonerated. Injured-Aazim, who is present in person, duly identified by his counsel Ms. Neetu Singh, stated before this Court that the accused persons inflicted injuries on his person with lathi and danda on the date of incident and the present FIR was lodged under some misconception. Injured also submitted that he does not want to prosecute the accused persons. This he is saying with his own free will.
-2-3. The question is - whether the injured/informant should be permitted to compound such offences against the applicant or not? The permission can be granted to the injured/informant to compound the 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 and Narendra Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another, (2014) 6 SCC 466.
4. 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 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 -3- 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."
4. While deciding whether to exercise its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or not, 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.
5. 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.
-4-6. It is the definite statement of learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned counsel for the respondent no.2 that it is not a case of acid burns. Learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned counsel for respondent no.2 have stated so on seeking instructions from their clients. Had it been a case of acid throwing, this court would not have permitted the injured to seek compounding of such heinous offence, which is anathema to the society at large, but since it is the responsible statement of learned counsel for the parties that it is not a case of throwing acid and according to victim's own version, he sustained injuries of Lathi & Danda, therefore, this Court should grant permission to the injured to compound the offences alleged against the applicant, on the basis of aforesaid decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the interest of justice. If permission is not granted to compound the offences, what will happen? The injured will not support the prosecution story before the trial court, prosecution agency will declare him hostile and the net result would be-acquittal to the accused, who is already under judicial detention in the case.
7. Since the injured/informant has buried all his differences against the applicant, therefore, he should be permitted to compound such offences against the applicant in the interest of justice.
8. 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
9. Compounding Application is, therefore, allowed. As a consequence thereof, application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is also allowed. The criminal proceedings of S.T No.222 of 2016 pending before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar (arising out of Case Crime No. 92/2016 registered under Sections 307, 323 and 326A of I.P.C at P.S Kotwali Pathri, District Haridwar) are hereby quashed on the basis of compromise between the parties.
-5-10. Let the applicant be released forthwith if he is not wanted in any other case. A copy of this order be sent to the Superintendent of Jail concerned where the applicant is currently detained.
(U. C. Dhyani, J.) Dated 21st March, 2017 NP