Anand Giri vs State of Uttarakhand

@DELETEUPPERDATA

Umesh Chandra Dhyani, J.—A charge sheet was submitted against the applicants for the offences punishable under sections 308 and 504 IPC read with section 34 IPC. The cognizance was taken by learned Magistrate, vide order dated 16.7.2014. Aggrieved against the same, present application under section 482 Cr.P.C. was filed by the accused-applicants. Compounding Application (CRMA No. 1237 of 2014) is filed before this Court to show that the parties have settled their disputes amicably. The compounding application is duly signed by the applicants (i.e. Anand Giri and Subhash Giri) and respondents No. 2 & 3, namely, Chandra Pal and Vikas Giri. Chandra Pal is the informant of the case and Vikas Giri is the victim/injured. Both Chandra Pal (informant) and Vikas Giri (injured) are present in person, duly identified by their Counsel Mr. Mohd. Allauddin. Both the applicants are also present in person before this Court, duly identified by their Counsel Mr. Manish Arora. Both informant and victim submitted before this Court that they do not wish to prosecute the applicants, in as much as, they have settled their dispute amicably, irrespective of the nature of injuries. They prayed that they may be permitted to compound the offences against the applicants, the application under section 482 Cr.P.C. be allowed and the proceedings of the criminal case be quashed.

Whereas the offence under section 504 IPC is compoundable offence within the scheme of section 320 Cr.P.C., the offence under section 308 IPC read with section 34 IPC is non-compoundable offence. The question is--whether the victim should be permitted to compound such offence against the applicants or not?

The permission can be granted to the victim to compound the offence punishable under section 308 IPC read with section 34 IPC in view of the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Dimpey Gujral and Others Vs. Union Territory Through Administrator, U.T. Chandigarh and Others, .

Hon''ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another, has 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 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 predominatingly 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 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."

Since the victim/injured has buried all his differences against the applicants, therefore, he should be permitted to compound offence under section 308 IPC read with section 34 IPC against the applicants in the interest of justice. Compounding Application is allowed. As a consequence thereof, application under section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed on the basis of compromise between the parties. The impugned charge-sheet cognizance order dated 16.7.2014 and the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 3696 of 2014 pending in the Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar are hereby set aside on the basis of compromise between the injured (victim), informant, on the one hand, and accused-applicants, on the other.