Asit Mukharjee and Others vs State of Uttarakhand and Others

Umesh Chandra Dhyani, J.—By means of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicants seek to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 226/2006 (Case Crime No. 7 of 2006) State vs. Asit Mukharjee and Others under Section 420 and 406 IPC.

It is the submission of learned counsel for the parties that the parties have resolved their dispute amicably and the complainant/victim is not interested in prosecuting the applicants. Affidavit of respondent no. 2 is brought on record to indicate the same.

Compounding Application (CRMA No. 461 of 2015) is filed before this Court to show that the parties have settled their disputes amicably. Applicant no. 1 is present in person before the court duly identified by his counsel Mr. Bhuwanesh Joshi, who affirms the fact that the respondent no. 2 has compounded the offence against the applicants. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2/complainant submitted before this Court that the complainant does not wish to prosecute the applicants, in as much as, a compromise has taken place between them. The complainant prayed that he 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.

Both of the offences complained of against the applicants are compoundable offences within the scheme of Section 320 Cr.P.C. (with the leave of the Court). The question is - whether the complainant (victim) should be permitted to compound such offences against the applicant or not?

Learned counsel for the parties drew attention of this Court towards the decisions of Hon''ble Supreme Court in Narinder Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Another, , Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another, and Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another, . Hon''ble Apex Court in Nikhil Merchant''s case (supra) held that Section 320 Cr.P.C. will not come in the way of High Court in exercising it''s inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In Gian Singh''s case (supra), Hon''ble Apex Court 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 statues 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 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." 6. Since the complainant (person cheated/victim) has buried all his differences against the applicants, therefore, he should be permitted to compound such offences against the applicant in the interest of justice.

Compounding Application is allowed. As a consequence thereof, application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is also allowed on the basis of compromise. The proceedings of Criminal Case No. 226/2006 (Case Crime No. 7 of 2006) State vs. Asit Mukharjee and Others under Sections 420 and 406 IPC are hereby quashed.