Uttarakhand High Court
Rinku @ Surendra Pal Singh And Others ... vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others on 20 October, 2021
Author: R.C. Khulbe
Bench: R.C. Khulbe
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (Crl.) No.1857 of 2021
With
Compounding Application (IA/1/2021)
Rinku @ Surendra Pal Singh and Others .......Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & Others ....Respondents
Mr. T.A. Khan, learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. Vinay Bhatt, learned counsel
for the petitioners.
Mr. V.K. Jimini, learned D.A.G. for the State of Uttarakhand.
Mr. Ravi Shankar Kandpal, learned counsel for respondent no.3.
Hon'ble R.C. Khulbe, J.
By way of present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners seek to quash the impugned FIR No.0155 of 2021, U/s 307, 504, 506 of IPC, registered at P.S. Nanakmatta, District U.S. Nagar.
2. The parties have filed the above-numbered compounding application to show that they have buried their differences and have settled their disputes amicably.
3. Learned counsel for the State opposed the compounding application.
4. It is contended by learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioners that the offences punishable under Sections 504, 506 IPC are compoundable offences whereas offence under Section 307 IPC is non-compoundable offence. He further submitted that, it was simply a matrimonial dispute between the parties; petitioner no.1 is the brother-in-law of the informant; compromise has taken place between the parties; the sister of the informant is living peacefully with her husband at matrimonial house. Apart from that, as per the medical report all the injuries are simple in nature; there was no intension to commit the offence falls under Section 307 IPC.
5. The Apex Court has dealt with the 2 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."
6. 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.
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has permitted compounding of such offences in the decision of Nikhil Merchant v. CBI and another, (2008) 9 SCC 650.
8. 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 3 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 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."
9. The instant case is squarely covered by the above ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
10. Parties are present before the Court and they are duly identified by their respective counsels.
11. Accordingly, compounding application is allowed. The entire proceedings, mentioned hereinabove, pending between the parties are hereby quashed qua the present petitioners only, on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.
12. Present writ petition is disposed of, as above.
13. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.
(R.C. Khulbe, J.) 20.10.2021 BS