Bhupinder Singh Kandari vs State Of Uttarakhand

R.C. Khulbe, J

By way of present application, moved under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. the applicants seek to quash the proceedings of Special S.T. No.10 of 2018,

“State Vs. Bhupinder Singh Kandariâ€, under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3 (1) (x) SC/ST Act, 1989, P.S. Clementown, District Dehradun,

pending before the learned Special Judge/Sessions Judge, Dehradun, as well as the summoning order dated 04.09.2018 in terms of compromise arrived

between the parties.

The parties have filed a Compounding Application No.3756 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 (1)(x) SC/ST Act is not a compoundable offence.

It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that no offence is made out against the present applicant.

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. Apart from that in a Cross (Cri.) Case No.259 of 2019, State

vs. Sunil Kumar and another, which is pending before the IIIrd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun has been quashed by this Court today

by filing an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in Criminal Misc. Case No.2652 of 2019, Sunil Kumar and another vs. State of Uttarakhand and

another.

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 applicant under Section 3(1) (x) SC/ST Act.

Accordingly, the Compounding Application No.3756 of 2019 is allowed. The proceedings of Special S.T. No.10 of 2018, “State Vs. Bhupinder

Singh Kandariâ€, under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3 (1) (x) SC/ST Act, 1989, P.S. Clementown, District Dehradun, which is pending before the

learned Special Judge/Sessions Judge, Dehradun, as well as the summoning order dated 04.09.2018, is hereby quashed, qua the present applicant 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.