Govind and Others vs State of Uttarakhand and Another

Umesh Chandra Dhyani, J.—The applicants, by means of present application/petition u/s 482 of Cr.P.C., seek to quash the orders dated 27.11.2010 and 07.04.2011; charge-sheet No. 268 of 2010, dated 30.07.2010, filed in criminal case No. 4972 of 2010, State vs. Rajesh and others, in FIR No. 229 of 2010, under Sections 452, 504, 506, 323 of IPC, police station Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar, as well as the entire proceedings of aforesaid criminal case, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar.

An FIR was lodged by respondent No. 2 against six accused persons, including the accused-applicants, on 30.05.2010, in police station Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 452, 324, 504, 506 of IPC. After the investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against the accused-applicants in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 452, 506, 504, 323 of IPC.

A Compounding Application, being CRMA No. 1480 of 2013, is moved on behalf of the parties to indicate that the parties have settled their dispute amicably. Injured persons/victims namely, Raghu, Sunita and Rita made a prayer that the offences complained of against the accused-applicants namely, Govind, Rajesh, Dewanti and Manju be compounded. The affected persons as well as the accused-applicants were present in person before the Court on 05.10.2013, duly identified by their respective counsel.

Offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506 of IPC are compoundable offences within the scheme of Section 320 of Cr.P.C. Since the injured persons/victims have stated in the open Court that they have compounded those offences against the accused-applicants, therefore, they are acquitted of the charges levelled against them in respect of those offences. Offence punishable u/s 452 of IPC is non-compoundable offence.

The only question which is left for consideration of this Court is whether the injured persons/victims should be permitted to compound the offence punishable u/s 452 of IPC or not?

Hon''ble Supreme Court of India in Transfer Petition (Criminal) No. 115 of 2012, Dimpey Gujral and Others Vs. Union Territory Through Administrator, U.T. Chandigarh and Others, permitted the injured to compound the offence punishable u/s 307 of IPC. The Hon''ble Apex Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another, has 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 here-in-under for ready reference:

The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarized 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 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 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 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 injured persons/victims have buried their differences amicably with the accused-applicants, therefore, the injured persons should be permitted to compound such offences against the accused-applicants in the interest of society as well as in the interest of justice.

Compounding Application CRMA No. 1480 of 2013 is allowed. Consequently, the application u/s 482 is also allowed. Orders dated 27.11.2010 and 07.04.2011; charge-sheet No. 268 of 2010, dated 30.07.2010, filed in criminal case No. 4972 of 2010, State v. Rajesh and others, in FIR No. 229 of 2010, under Sections 452, 504, 506, 323 of IPC, police station Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar, as well as the entire proceedings of aforesaid criminal case, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar are hereby quashed on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.