Diwan Singh & Others vs State Of Uttarakhand & Another

Ravindra Maithani, J

The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') has been filed for quashing the impugned summoning order dated 16.05.2016 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainital District Nainital in Criminal Case No.1013 of 2015, State vs. Vikram Singh Negi and another for the offences punishable under Section 498-A, 504, 506 I.P.C. and under Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Mallital, Nainital and impugned charge sheet dated 22.03.2016.

This is a case arises out from a matrimonial discord. Husband and wife both are not party to this petition. It is informed that separate petition no.325 of 2009 under Section 482 of the Code was filed by the husband, in which compounding has been accepted and proceedings quashed.

A compounding application has also been filed by the parties, which is supported by the affidavits of the petitioner nos.1 to 3, and respondent no.2. The petitioner no.1 Diwan Singh Negi, petitioner no.2 Smt. Lalita Negi and petitioner no.3 Smt. Rekha Negi are present in person before this Court, duly identified by their counsel Mr. Paritosh Dalakoti and respondent no.2 Pitamber Singh Adhikari is also present in person before this Court duly identified by his counsel Ms. Prabha Noliyal.

In fact, Vikram Singh Negi, husband, who is identified by Mr. Paritosh Dalakoti, Advocate and his wife Smt. Vimla Negi, who is identified by Ms. Anjali Noliyal, Advocate are also present in Court. They both have stated that they had settled their dispute amicably.

The petitioner nos.1 to 3 and respondent no.2 state that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties.

Learned counsel for the petitioners and respondent no.2 both would argue that the dispute between the parties has amicably been settled. Now, continuance of any criminal proceedings would definitely be non productive and would not yield any result to meet ends of justice. Hence, the proceedings may be quashed.

In the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another, (2012) 10 SCC 303, Hon'ble Supreme Court, interalia, held as under:

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........................................................

In the case of Parbatbhai Aahir Alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Others Vs. State of Gujrat and Another, (2017) 9 SCC 641, principles have been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of quashing criminal proceedings on the ground of settlement between the parties.

In fact, the proceedings of criminal case no.1013 of 2015 pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainital has already been quashed vide order dated 14.03.2019 passed in C-482 No.375 of 2019. Though parties have entered into a compromise in this petition as well but this compounding is only for the purpose of record because what is required by way of the instant petition has already been granted by order dated 14.03.2019 passed in C-482 No.375 of 2019.

Accordingly, the instant petition is disposed of.

Compounding Application No.486 of 2019 stands disposed of accordingly.