Uttarakhand High Court
Ashish Mittal And Others vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 27 March, 2017
Author: U.C. Dhyani
Bench: U.C. Dhyani
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Application No. 1351 of 2015
(Under Section 482 Cr.P.C.)
Ashish Mittal and four others ................ Applicants
versus
State of Uttarakhand and others .......... Respondents
Mr. Arvind Vashisth, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Vivek Pathak,
Advocate, present for the applicants.
Mr. S. S. Adhikari, Brief Holder, for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent no.1
& 2.
Mr. Kanti Ram Sharma, Advocate, present for the respondent no.3.
U.C. Dhyani, J. (Oral)
1. By means of present Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicants seek to quash the entire proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 206 of 1996, State vs. Sanjay Agarwal, pending before the Sessions Judge, Dehradun, arising out of the FIR registered at Police Station Mussorie, District Dehradun being Case Crime No. 102 of 1995 under Section 307 I.P.C.
2. A compounding application being CRMA No. 1838 of 2015 has been filed by the parties to show that the parties have buried their differences and have settled their disputes amicably. Affidavits have been filed by Sanjay Agarwal [respondent no.3, son of the victim (since deceased)] and Ashish Mittal (applicant no.1) to show that the parties have buried their differences and have settled their disputes 2 amicably. Respondent no. 3 (Sanjay Agarwal, son of deceased) is present in person, duly identified by his counsel Mr. Kanti Ram Sharma, Advocate. Petitioners/applicants are also present in person duly identified by their counsel Mr. Arvind Vashisth, Senior Advocate.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants placed two decisions of Dehli High Court, namely, Mahendra Singh vs. State (GNCT of Delhi) & others, reported in 2016 Law Suit (Del) 734 and Rajendra Singh & others, vs. State of NCT of Delhi, reported in 2016 Law Suit (Del) 1057 and submitted that the legal representatives of the victim can compound the offences. This Court is unable to agree to such submission of learned Senior Counsel for the applicants in the peculiar facts of this case.
4. In landmark decision of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another, (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 160, Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as follows:
"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 3 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 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."
[Emphasis supplied]
5. It has specifically been directed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid decision of Gian Singh (supra) thus:
"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.4
Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society."
6. In the instant case, the allegation were levelled against the applicants for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC, but, the fact remains that the victim died subsequent thereto and hence he is not available before this Court to seek compounding of the offence alleged against the applicants.
7. This Court has permitted the compounding of the offence under Section 307 IPC on the basis of various decisions including the one in Dimpy Gujral vs. Union Territory though Administrator U.T. Chandigarh and others, [2013 (123) AIC 119 (S.C.)], but in all those cases, the victim always appears before the Court and makes a prayer that he may be permitted to compound the offences. In the instant case, the situation is entirely different. Victim is not present. He cannot be present in the Court because he has been called for heavenly abode. Had he been present and sought compounding of offence, it is possible that the Court would have permitted him to compound the case, but, unfortunately, it is not so at present. Although, victim's legal heir is present and he is ready to compound the offence, but, in absence of the victim, this Court cannot think of permitting one to compound the offence alleged against the applicants.
8. In view of the above, Compounding Application No. 1838 of 2015 is dismissed. As a consequence thereof, present C-482 Petition is also dismissed.
(U.C. Dhyani, J.) 27.03.2017 Kaushal 5