Uttarakhand High Court
Tek Chand And Others vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 22 November, 2016
Author: U.C. Dhyani
Bench: U.C. Dhyani
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Writ Petition No. 1542 of 2016
Sevaram and others ....... Petitioners
versus
State of Uttarakhand and others ....... Respondents
Mr. Rajendra Singh Azad, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. A.S. Gill, Dy. Advocate General with Mr. Milind Raj, Brief Holder
for the respondent State.
Ms. Lovely Grover, Advocate for respondent no. 3.
with
Criminal Writ Petition No. 1540 of 2016
Tek Chand and others ....... Petitioners
versus
State of Uttarakhand and others ....... Respondents
Ms. Lovely Grover, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. A.S. Gill, Dy. Advocate General with Mr. Milind Raj, Brief Holder
for the respondent State.
Mr. Rajendra Singh Azad, Advocate for respondent no. 3.
U.C. Dhyani, J.(Oral)
Since the aforesaid criminal writ petitions have arisen out of the same incident, in which cross FIRs were lodged by the parties against each other, therefore, they are being decided together by this common judgment and order for the sake of brevity and convenience.
2) An FIR has been lodged against the accused- petitioners of criminal writ petition no. 1542 of 2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 323, 326, 504, 506 IPC. Cross FIR has also been filed [with the aid of Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.] against the accused-petitioners of criminal writ 2 petition no. 1540 of 2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 323, 325, 326, 504, 506 IPC.
3) Compounding application, being CLMA no. 12000 of 2016, has been filed by the parties in criminal writ petition no. 1542 of 2016 to indicate that they have buried their differences and have settled their dispute amicably. Joint compromise has been filed alongwith affidavits of Sanjay (petitioner no. 3) as well as of Tek Chand (injured / victim).
Similarly, Compounding application, being CLMA no. 11999 of 2016, has also been filed by the parties in criminal writ petition no. 1540 of 2016 to indicate that they have buried their differences and have settled their dispute amicably outside the court. Joint compromise has been filed alongwith affidavits of Tek Chand (petitioner no. 1) as well as of Deepak Kumar (one of the injured).
4) Accused-petitioners Sanjay, Deepak and Amit of criminal writ petition no. 1542 of 2016 are present in person before the Court, duly identified by their counsel Mr. Rajendra Singh Azad, Advocate. Accused-petitioners Sevaram and Bunty @ Deepak are in jail. Injured Tek Chand, complainant- respondent no. 3 Smt. Sunita and Mohit are also present in person before the Court, duly identified by their counsel Ms. Lovely Grover, Advocate.
Similarly, accused-petitioners Tek Chand and Smt. Sunita of criminal writ petition no. 1540 of 2016 are also present in person before the Court, duly identified by their counsel Ms. Lovery Grover, Advocate. Respondent- complainant Sauraj, as also injured persons namely, Amit, Smt. Pushpa, Deepak, Rekha and Reena are also present in person before the Court, duly identified by their counsel Mr. Rajendra Singh Azad, Advocate.
35) Complainants-respondent no. 3 in both the criminal writ petitions stated that they as well as other injured persons are no more interested in prosecuting the accused persons (petitioners of both writ petitions), in as much as the dispute between the parties has been resolved amicably. They further stated that they may be permitted to compound the offences alleged against the accused persons. The statements given by both the complainants-respondent no. 3 in the open Court has been affirmed on behalf of the accused persons.
6) Section 326 IPC is non-compoundable offence within the scheme of Section 320 Cr.P.C.
7) Cross cases were lodged by the parties against each other. There are burn injuries on both the sides. Though the offences alleged against the accused persons are serious, but the only question which is left for consideration of this Court is whether the complainants-respondent no. 3 (in both the writ petitions) as well as other injured persons should be permitted to compound such offences alleged against the accused- petitioners or not?
8) Learned counsel for the petitioners (in both the writ petitions) drew attention of this Court towards a decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Dimpy Gujral vs Union Territory through Administrator U.T. Chandigarh and others, [2013 (123) AIC 119 (S.C.)] and Narendra Singh and others vs State of Punjab and another, (2014) 6 SCC 466, where the said Court has permitted compounding of such type of offences, which are otherwise 4 non-compoundable, within the scheme of Section 320 of Cr.P.C.
9) 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, 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 5 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."
10) The reply to the question, posed by this Court in para no. 7 of this Judgment, therefore, is in the affirmative. Otherwise also, it will be a futile exercise if proceedings of the criminal case against the petitioners (of both the writ petitions) are kept pending when the parties have settled their disputes amicably.
11) Both the compounding application are allowed. As a consequence thereof, aforesaid criminal writ petitions are also allowed. Impugned FIR, being case crime no. 275 of 2016, under Sections 147, 323, 326, 504, 506 IPC, as also impugned FIR, being case crime no. 336 of 2016, under Sections 147, 323, 325, 326, 504, 506 IPC, both registered with police station, Kotwali Cangnahar, Roorkee, District Haridwar are hereby quashed on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.
(U.C. Dhyani, J.) Dt. November 22, 2016.
Negi 6