Uttarakhand High Court
Vinod Kumar vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 4 April, 2013
Author: U.C. Dhyani
Bench: U.C. Dhyani
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Appn. (C-482) No. 335 of 2013
Vinod Kumar ....... Applicant
versus
State of Uttarakhand and another ....... Respondents
Mr. P.C. Petshali, Advocate for the applicant.
Mr. M.A. Khan, Brief Holder for respondent no. 1.
Mr. K.S. Verma, Advocate for respondent no. 2.
Hon'ble U.C. Dhyani, J.
By way of present application / petition, moved under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the applicant / petitioner seeks to quash the charge sheet dated 19.02.2006 (Annexure-2 to the petition) and to quash the entire proceedings of Case No. 630 of 2013, State vs. Vinod, pending in the court of I Addl. Civil Judge (J.D.) / Judicial Magistrate, Dehrdaun on the basis of amicable settlement entered into between the parties.
2) An FIR was lodged by respondent no. 2 Rajneesh Mittal against Vinod Kumar (applicant) and Smt. Sarita in police station Kotwali, Dehradun on 01.12.2005 in respect of offences punishable under Sections 420, 342, 504, 506 of IPC. After completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was submitted against the applicant Vinod Kumar in respect of offences punishable under Sections 406, 342, 504, 506. Now the respondent no. 2 seeks permission to compound the offences complained of against the applicant.
23) It may be noted here that the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 506 of IPC are compoundable offences with the permission of the Court as provided under the scheme of Section 320 Cr.P.C. Offences punishable under Sections 342 and 504 of IPC are simply compoundable offences. Affidavits have been filed on behalf of the applicant (accused) and the informant (respondent no. 2) to this effect. Informant Rajneesh Mittal is present in person before the Court duly identified by his counsel Mr. K.S. Verma. Accused / applicant Vinod Kumar is also present in person before the Court duly identified by his counsel Mr. P.C. Petshali.
4) Learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on the ruling of Nikhil Merchant vs. C.B.I. and another, 2008 AIR SCW 7501. Paragraph 24 of the said judgment is reproduced below for ready reference:-
"24. On an overall view of the facts as indicated hereinabove and keeping in mind the decision of this Court in B.S. Joshi's case (2003) 4 SCC
675) and the compromise arrived at between the Company and the Bank as also clause 11 of the consent terms filed in the suit filed by the Bank, we are satisfied that this is a fit case where technicality should not be allowed to stand in the way in the quashing of the criminal proceedings, since, in our view, the continuance of the same 3 after the compromise arrived at between the parties would be a futile exercise."
5) Learned counsel for the applicant drew the attention of this Court towards the ruling of Gian Singh vs. 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 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 4 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."
6) The instant case is squarely covered by the said rulings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is pertinent to note here that the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 506 of IPC are compoundable offences with the permission of the Court, under the scheme of Section 320 Cr.P.C. The offences punishable under Sections 342 and 504 of IPC are simply compoundable offence. The only thing which requires consideration is whether the applicant and the complainant should be permitted to compound the offences punishable under Section 406 and 506 of IPC or not and the obvious reply is in the affirmative in 5 view of the rulings of Hon'ble Apex Court in Nikhil Merchant vs. C.B.I. and another, 2008 AIR SCW 7501, B.S. Joshi's case (2003) 4 SCC 675 and Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 160.
7) Therefore, the informant / respondent no. 2 is permitted to compound the offences in view of the above rulings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
8) The application / petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is accordingly allowed. Impugned charge sheet dated 19.02.2013 as well as the entire proceedings of criminal case no. 630 of 2013, State vs. Vinod, as regards offences punishable under Sections 420, 342, 504, 506 of IPC, pending in the court of I Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) / Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun are hereby quashed.
(U.C. Dhyani, J.) Dt. April 04, 2013.
Negi