AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Puneet Gupta, J
This petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, seeking quashment of FIR No.39/2019 dated 12.11.2019, for offences under Section 498-A/406 IPC, registered with Police Station, Women Cell, Srinagar and consequent proceedings titled State vs. Irshad Hussain Sheikh and Ors, pending before the Court of Special Mobile Magistrate (PT&E) at Srinagar.
Briefly stated, the case of the petitioners is that petitioner No.1 was married to respondent No.2-complainant in the year 2017. However, they could not continue their matrimonial life and respondent No.2 filed three cases against the petitioners herein, under various Sections of Domestic Violence Act 2005, under Section 125 Cr.P.C, besides a complaint against petitioner No.1 for cheating, criminal breach of trust, misappropriation and to investigate the matter regarding the golden ornaments and other valuables of respondent No.2 in illegal custody of petitioner No.1. Respondent No.2 also filed an FIR No.39 of 2019 dated 12.11.2019 against the petitioners before Police Station, Women Cell Srinagar.
During the pendency of the cases, the parties with the intervention of the relatives and common friends have decided to dissolve the dispute between them and have entered into a compromise before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Ganderbal. It is submitted that on the basis of compromise all the three cases pending before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Ganderbal were disposed of vide its order dated 17.01.2023. Copies of the compromise and order dated 17.01.2023 have been placed on record.
It is further submitted that respondent No.1 through SHO Police Station, Women Cell Sringar has filed a challan before the court of Special Mobile Magistrate (PT&E) at Srinagar in absence of petitioner No.1, who is stated to be working outside the Country.
It is stated in the compromise deed that relationship between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 has come to an end and the parties have settled their matrimonial dispute amicably.
Respondent No.2-complainant and petitioners No.2 to 5 (Petitioner No.1 through his Attorney holder) have also made a statement before the Registrar Judicial on 26.12.2023, wherein they have stated that the parties have amicably resolved all the disputes and the contents of the deed of compromise have also been admitted.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
So far as the facts alleged in petition pertaining to the compromise arrived at between the parties in terms of compromise deed dated 17.01.2023 are concerned, the same are admitted by the parties. According to the petitioners, offence under Section 498-A/406 IPC is non-compoundable in nature. However, it is submitted that merely because the offences alleged in the FIR are non-compoundable, pendency of criminal proceedings would amount to grave injustice to the petitioners when the parties have entered into compromise as it will amount to frittering away of the fruits of compromise arrived at between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the Supreme Court judgment passed in Gian Singh. v. State of Punjab & another, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, wherein while considering this aspect, the Court has observed as under:
“57. 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."
Learned counsel for the petitioners has further relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case titled Narinder Singh and Ors vs State of Punjab and Another, reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, wherein the Court has laid down guidelines for quashing of criminal proceedings. The guidelines are reproduced as under:
"29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings:
29.1. Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution.
29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:
(i) ends of justice, or
(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.
29.3. Such a power is not be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, for offences alleged to have been committed under special statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by Public Servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender.
29.4. On the other, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves.
29.5. While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases.
29.6. Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be generally treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to proving the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc. Medical report in respect of injuries suffered by the victim can generally be the guiding factor. On the basis of this prima facie analysis, the High Court can examine as to whether there is a strong possibility of conviction or the chances of conviction are remote and bleak. In the former case it can refuse to accept the settlement and quash the criminal proceedings whereas in the later case it would be permissible for the High Court to accept the plea compounding the offence based on complete settlement between the parties. At this stage, the Court can also be swayed by the fact that the settlement between the parties is going to result in harmony between them which may improve their future relationship.
29.7. While deciding whether to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code or not, timings of settlement play a crucial role. Those cases where the settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged commission of offence and the matter is still under investigation, the High Court may be liberal in accepting the settlement to quash the criminal proceedings/investigation. It is because of the reason that at this stage the investigation is still on and even the charge sheet has not been filed. Likewise, those cases where the charge is framed but the evidence is yet to start or the evidence is still at infancy stage, the High Court can show benevolence in exercising its powers favourably, but after prima facie assessment of the circumstances/material mentioned above. On the other hand, where the prosecution evidence is almost complete or after the conclusion of the evidence the matter is at the stage of argument, normally the High Court should refrain from exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code, as in such cases the trial court would be in a position to decide the case finally on merits and to come a conclusion as to whether the offence under Section 307 IPC is committed or not. Similarly, in those cases where the conviction is already recorded by the trial court and the matter is at the appellate stage before the High Court, mere compromise between the parties would not be ground to accept the same resulting in acquittal of the offender who has already been convicted by the trial court. Here charge is proved under Section 307 IPC and conviction is already recorded of a heinous crime and, therefore, there is no question of sparing a convict found guilty of such a crime."
From a perusal of the aforesaid observations of the Supreme Court, it is clear that in the cases or disputes where the parties have resolved their entire dispute, the High Court is well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings if it is known that because of the compromise arrived at between the parties, there is remote possibility of securing conviction of the accused. In fact, in such cases, the Supreme Court has clearly observed that it would amount to extreme injustice if despite settlement having been arrived at by the parties, the criminal proceedings are allowed to continue.
In the present case, it is clear that petitioner No. 1 and respondent No.2, have entered into a compromise, whereby respondent No.2 has decided not to pursue the prosecution against petitioner No. 1 in the impugned FIR. Therefore, once the parties have arrived at a settlement as regards the basis of the dispute, allowing the prosecutions to continue merely because some of the offences alleged against the accused are non-compoundable in nature, would amount to great injustice to both the parties and, in fact, it will amount to frittering away the fruits of compromise that has been arrived at between the parties. The continuance of criminal proceedings against the petitioners, in these circumstances, will be nothing but an abuse of process of law.
In view of the above, this petition is allowed. Accordingly, the proceedings in case titled State vs. Irshad Hussain Sheikh and Ors, pending disposal before the Court of Special Mobile Magistrate (PT&E), Srinagar arising out of FIR No.39/2019 registered with Police Station Women Cell Srinagar, shall stand quashed.