Arshad Ikbal And Another vs State Of Uttarakhand & Another

R.C. Khulbe, J

By way of present application, moved under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. the applicants seek to quash the entire proceedings of Special S.T. No.13 of

2017, “State Vs. Arshad & othersâ€, under Section 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3 (I) X SC/ST Act, P.S. Kotwali Roorkee, District Haridwar pending

before District Judge/ Special Judge SC/ST Act, Haridwar as well as the impugned charge sheet dated 06.10.2014 and summoning order dated

18.11.2014 in terms of compromise arrived between the parties.

The parties have filed a Compounding Application no.4017 of 2019 to show that the parties have buried their differences and have settled their

disputes amicably.

It is contended by learned counsel for the State that the offence punishable under Section 3 (I) X SC/ST Act is not a compoundable offence.

It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that no offence is made out in the present matter. Co-accused Javed has already filed a

criminal misc. application No. 923 of 2017 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in which compounding application was moved and accordingly it was allowed by

a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 14.07.2017 and the criminal proceedings of case No.5361 of 2014 has already been quashed against the co-

accused.

The Apex Court has dealt with the 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.â€​

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.

Hon’ble Supreme Court has permitted compounding of such offences in the decision of Nikhil Merchant v. CBI and another, (2008) 9

SCC 650.

Learned counsel for the parties also drew the attention of this Court towards the ruling 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 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.â€​

Parties are present before this Court and duly identified by their respective counsel.

Considering the fact that the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504 and 506 IPC are compoundable offences and no offence is made out

against the applicants under Section 3(I) X SC/ST Act. In addition to this, proceedings against the co-accused-Javed have already been quashed in the

present matter and respondent no.2 has filed an affidavit stating that the matter has been settled amicably between the parties, it would be just and

appropriate to allow the present compounding application in the interest of justice.

Accordingly, the compounding application is allowed. The entire proceedings of Special S.T. No.13 of 2017, “State Vs. Arshad & othersâ€,

under Section 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3 (I) X SC/ST Act, P.S. Kotwali Roorkee, District Haridwar pending before District Judge/ Special Judge SC/ST

Act, Haridwar as well as the impugned charge sheet dated 06.10.2014 and summoning order dated 18.11.2014 is hereby quashed, qua the present

applicants only, on the basis of compromise arrived between the parties.

Present C482 application stands disposed of, as above.

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.