Gajender Singh vs State of Uttarakhand

Umesh Chandra Dhyani, J.—The applicant, by means of present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C., seeks to quash the criminal case no. 609 of 2011, under Sections 420, 468 and 472 of IPC, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Laksar.

A charge-sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 472 of IPC was submitted against the applicant. Cognizance was taken on the charge-sheet. Applicant was summoned to face the trial. Aggrieved against the same, present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. was filed by the applicant.

A compounding application being CRMA No. 758 of 2014 has been filed by the parties to indicate that they have settled their disputes amicably. The compounding application is supported by the affidavits of applicant Gajender Singh as well as respondent no. 2 Smt. Sangeeta. Smt. Sangeeta is present in person, duly identified by her counsel Ms. Lata Negi, Advocate, who says that respondent no. 2 is no more interested in prosecuting the applicant and also prayed that she may be permitted to compound the offences alleged against the applicant. She also stated that she has no objection if the criminal proceedings pending against the applicant are set aside and quashed. Applicant is also present in person before the Court, duly identified by her counsel Ms. Neetu Singh, who affirmed what is stated by complainant/respondent no. 2.

Only offence punishable u/s 420 of IPC is compoundable offence with the permission of the Court as enshrined within the Scheme of Section 320 of Cr.P.C. The other offences are non-compoundable offences. The question is-whether the victim/complainant should be permitted to compound the offences under Sections 420, 468 and 472 of IPC against the applicant or not?

Hon''ble Supreme Court has permitted compounding of non-compoundable offences in the case of Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another, .

Learned counsel for the petitioners drew the attention of this Court towards the ruling of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another, , in which Hon''ble Supreme Court observed that the 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. Relevant paragraph of Gian Singh''s case (supra) is reproduced herein below for ready reference:

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 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 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.

Since the complainant/respondent no. 2 has settled the dispute amicably with the accused-applicant, therefore, the complainant should be permitted to compound such offences against the accused-applicant in the interest of society as well as in the interest of justice.

Compounding Application No. 758 of 2014 is thus allowed. As a consequence of the same, the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 609 of 2011, under Sections 420, 468 and 472 of IPC, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Laksar, are hereby quashed against applicant.

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is thus disposed of in terms of compromise arrived at between the parties.