Avinash Semalty and Others vs State of Uttarakhand and Another

Umesh Chandra Dhyani, J.—The applicants, by means of present Application u/s 482, Cr.P.C. seeks to quash the summoning order dated 26.06.208 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Rishikesh in Misc. Criminal Case No. 48 of 2008 titled as Ashok Kumar v. Avinash Semalty & others, under Sections 147, 504, 506, I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(iv)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Respondent No. 2-Ashok Kumar filed an application u/s 156(3), Cr.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate, Rishikesh against the accused-applicant. On the said application, the Judicial Magistrate, directed the police to register and investigate the matter. After the investigation, a final report was submitted by the police. On filing a protest petition by respondent No. 2, the same was treated as complaint case and the applicants were summoned to face the trial. Aggrieved against the same, present application u/s 482, Cr.P.C. was filed by accused-applicants.

Learned counsel for the parties stated that respondent No. 2 and applicants have buried their differences and they have settled their disputes amicably outside the Court. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 stated that respondent No. 2 does not wish to prosecute the accused-applicants. He further stated that he has no objection, if the proceedings of criminal case against the accused-applicants pending in the court below are quashed.

Offences under Sections 147, 504 & 506, I.P.C. are compoundable within the scheme of Section 320, Cr.P.C., and as such, these offences are compounded against the applicants in view of the out of Court settlement between the respondent No. 2 and accused-applicants. However, offence u/s 3(1)(iv)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is non-compound able offence within the scheme of Section 320, Cr.P.C. The question is - whether the respondent No. 2 should be permitted to compound such offence against the applicants or not? The pronouncement of the Hon''ble Apex Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another, provides the answer in ''affirmative''. The Hon''ble Apex Court in the said verdict has observed as follows:

The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarized thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or F.I.R. or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences u/s 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 predominantly 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 respondent No. 2/complainant has buried all his differences against the applicants, he should be permitted to compound such offence against the applicants in the interest of justice. The respondent No. 2/victim is accordingly granted permission to compound the offence u/s 3(1)(iv)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. As a consequence thereof, application u/s 482, Cr.P.C. is allowed and the proceedings of Misc. Criminal Case No. 48 of 2008 under Sections 147, 504, 506, I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(iv)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Rishikesh are hereby quashed against the accused-applicants.