Ajay Kumar vs UT Of J&K & Anr

MA.Chowdhary, J

Inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 CrPC is being invoked by the petitioner for quashment of challan titled “State of J&K vs Ajay Kumar” pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate (Munsiff), Basohli, arising out of FIR No. 39/2019 registered at Police Station Basohli District Kathua, against the petitioner for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 354, 506 RPC.

The parties are stated to have entered into a compromise and settled their disputes and differences, whereunder the impugned FIR had been got registered at the instance of respondent No.2 against the petitioner and consequently, a compromise deed is placed on record of the instant petition.

In view of the compromise, so arrived at between the parties, the petitioner, as also the respondent No. 2 in terms of order dated 10.05.2022 were directed to appear before the Registrar Judicial for recording their statements in support of the deed of compromise. Their statements have been recorded on 18.05.2022, wherein the petitioner, namely, Ajay Kumar @ Ajay Singh has stated that he has amicably resolved all the disputes and issues with complainant Kajal Devi-respondent No.2 and have reached the compromise which was recorded on 15.01.2022. He further prayed that the Challan No. 31/2019 titled State vs Ajay Kumar @ Ajay Singh, pending before the trial Court, arising out of FIR No. 39/2019 registered at Police Station Basohli against him for the commission of offences punishable under sections 354, 506 RPC be quashed, in view of the compromise reached between the petitioner and respondent No.2. Similarly, respondent No.2/complainant, namely, Kajal Devi has also stated that she has entered into a compromise with the petitioner/accused in the case and she does not wish to prosecute her case against him any further and submitted that she has no objection in case Challan No. 31/2019 titled State vs Ajay Kumar @ Ajay Singh, pending before the trial Court, arising out of FIR No. 39/2019 registered at Police Station Basohli against the petitioner for the commission of offences punishable under sections 354, 506 RPC as well as the impugned FIR is quashed.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

A question, in view of the aforesaid factual position, has arisen as to whether this Court has power to quash the proceedings, particularly when some of the offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioner, are non-compoundable in nature.

In a case titled, “Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another” reported in 2012 (10) SCC 303”, while considering the aspect of whether the High Court has power to quash the proceedings when some of the offences alleged to have been committed are non-compoundable in nature, the Apex Court has observed as follows:

“57. 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 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”.

Petitioners/accused pleaded following facts:

a) That on 12.08.2019, the petitioner was going to his home, he saw the respondent No.2 walking on the road towards her home, the petitioner offered her lift in the case as he was also going towards the same side. On this, she got into the car out of her free will and consent. While reaching near the house, one of the family members of the respondent No.2 saw her coming out of the car of the petitioner, resultantly the family of respondent No.2 came to know about it and took it as an insult.

b) That, the family members of respondent No.2 saw this as an opportunity to pressurize the petitioner’s family by getting him involved in frivolous complaint; the parents of respondent No.2 even said to the father of petitioner to settle the property dispute otherwise they will get the petitioner roped in some criminal case to which the petitioner’s family didn’t agree and resultantly respondent No.2 on 14.08.2019 i.e., after two days of the incident, under the pressure of her family got an FIR registered at Police Station Basohli for the commission of offences punishable under sections 354, 506 RPC against the petitioner, thereafter Final Report/Charge-sheet was presented in the court of law bearing Challan No. 31/2019 and trial court vide order dated 29.08.2019 took its cognizance.

Official respondent in his counter has stated that the present petition is not maintainable as the same involves factual disputes which can only be adjudicated by leading evidence in the case and requires a full dressed trial by the trial Court. It is averred that on 14.08.2019 complainant Kajal Devi along with her mother filed an application at Police Station against the accused Ajay Kumar S/O Sansar Singh R/O Hutt Tehsil Basohli, wherein it has been stated that on 12.08.2019 at about 5:15 PM when the complainant was coming towards her home from her work (tuition teacher), the accused person with criminal intention came behind of the complainant on the vehicle and stopped the vehicle in front of her and caught hold her from her breast and forcibly put her in the vehicle and took the vehicle towards jungle where he started outraging the modesty of the complainant, but the complainant saved herself and rushed away from the spot, thereafter accused threatened that if she will narrate this matter with any person then he will make the end of her life. On this application, case FIR No. 39/2019 for the commission of offences punishable under sections 354, 341, 506 RPC stands registered and investigation of the case was entrusted to SI Sikander Singh No. EXJ-119194. During the course of investigation, I.O visited the spot, prepared site plan, recorded the statements of witnesses and victim under section 161 CrPC. As per the investigation, offences under sections 354, 506 RPC were established against the accused person, whereas offence u/s 341 RPC was not proved against the said accused and finally I.O presented the challan before the court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Basohli, for the afore-stated offences.

After investigation of the case, investigating agency had laid the charge-sheet for the commission of offences punishable under sections 354, 506 RPC. The petitioner as an accused was charge-sheeted by the trial court for the aforementioned offences vide order dated 17.12.2019, to which he pleaded not guilty. Offence under section 354 RPC is non-compoundable whereas offence under section 506 RPC is compoundable and both the offences are personal in nature against the respondent No.2 who is complainant/victim.

The ratio of judgment of Gian Singh’s case (supra) makes the legal proposition abundantly clear that the High Court has inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justice if the parties have settled their disputes amicably by a compromise. Thus, in view of the amicable settlement between the parties, the possibility of conviction of the petitioners herein is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case rather would put the petitioner to great oppression and extreme injustice despite full and complete settlement and compromise having been arrived at with the respondent No. 2 and further continuation of the proceedings arising out of the FIR in question would be unfair and contrary to the interests of justice and in essence, would amount to abuse of process of law.

For the reasons discussed hereinabove, the instant petition is allowed and the challan titled “State of J&K vs Ajay Kumar” pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate (Munsiff), Basohli, arising out of FIR No. 39/2019 registered at Police Station Basohli District Kathua, against the petitioner for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 354, 506 RPC, in view of compromise arrived at between the parties, is hereby ordered to be quashed.

Petition along with pending application(s), is thus disposed of, accordingly

Copy of this order be sent to the Court below for compliance.