Firoz And Others vs State Of Uttarakhand & Another

R.C. Khulbe, J

By way of present application, moved under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., applicants seek to quash the cognizance order dated 04.10.2018 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Roorkee, District Haridwar in case no.1677 of 2018, "State Vs. Firoz and others" pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Roorkee, District Haridwar for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 452, 323, 325, 504, 506 of IPC. The criminal case was registered at Police Station Kotwali Manglor, District Haridwar as FIR No. 0316 under Section 147, 148, 452, 323, 325, 504, 506 IPC on 24.05.2018 by respondent no.2 in terms of compromise arrived between the parties.

After perusal of the FIR, it would reveal that respondent no.2 lodged an FIR on 24.05.2018 at Police Station Kotwali Manglor, District Haridwar with the allegations that member of Gafar and Khursheed family are quarrelsome and everyday these people used to beat the people of the locality to show their terror. On 18.05.2018 at about 9 a.m. girls of informant family had gone out. On the way, Firoz, Arsad, Naseem, Saleem used bad language towards girls of the informant family. Hearing it the girls of informant family returned home and explained everything to Saddam, the brother of the girls. Saddam requested these persons not to show such conduct in future. At that time these people returned home. After some time these people along with 8 or 10 persons armed with Lathi and Danda came to the house of the informant with the intention to kill the family members of the informant. These persons attacked the family members of the informant and threatened to kill the family members of the informant. In this quarrel Islam received head injury and Kaleem received an injury on his chin. Hearing the noise people of the locality came on the spot and saved the informant and his family from these persons.

The parties have filed a Compounding Application (CRMA No.1618 of 2019) to show that the parties have buried their differences and have settled their disputes amicably.

It is further contended that the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148 and 452 of IPC are non-compoundable offences.

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."

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."

Parties are present in the Court today and they are duly identified by their respective counsel.

Although the offences punishable under Section 147, 148 and 452 of IPC are non-compoundable offence, however, in view of rulings of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgments supra and also considering the fact that complainant 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 case no.1677 of 2018, "State Vs. Firoz and others" pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Roorkee, District Haridwar for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 452, 323, 325, 504, 506 of IPC along with the cognizance order dated 04.10.2018 is hereby quashed, qua the applicants, on the basis of compromise arrived among the parties.

Present C482 application stands disposed of, as above.

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