Karnail Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another

N.S. Dhanik, J

By means of this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., applicant has prayed for quashing the entire proceedings of Session Trial No. 113 of 2017, under Sections 504 & 506 of IPC and Section 3(1)(X) of the S.C./S.T. Act, registered at P.S. Nanakmatta, District Udham Singh Nagar, pending in the Court of learned Special Session Judge, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar along with impugned summoning order dated 18.09.2013 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Khatima in Criminal Complaint Case No. 436 of 2013.

Present application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. itself has been filed with the prayer to quash the summoning and further proceedings pending against the applicant on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties. Complainant-Hri Singh is present in person, duly identified by his counsel Mr. Deep Prakash Bhatt, Advocate. He says that he has buried his differences and has settled the dispute amicably with the applicant; he is no more interested in prosecuting the applicant and makes a prayer to permit him to compound the offences complained of against the accused applicant. Accused-applicant Karnail Singh is also present in person, duly identified by his counsel Mr. Pankaj Sharma, Advocate.

Learned counsel for the applicant drew the attention of this Court towards the ruling of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & 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 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 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 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."

Learned counsel for the applicant and respondent no. 2 would submit that even if the contents of the FIR be conceded to be true, no ingredients of Section 3 (1)(X) of the Schdeuled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act are prima facie made out against the applicant, in the sense that informant nowhere said that the accused himself was not a member of SC/ST and he used those words intentionally in order to humiliate him (victim) in a place within the public view knowing it that he (victim) belonged to a community of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes.

Learned counsel for the parties prayed that since no offence under Section 3 (1)(X) of the SC/ST Act is made out against the applicant even on bare reading of contents of the First Information Report, therefore, he may be permitted to compound this offence. Both the counsels have placed a judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Gorige Pentaiah vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & others: (2008) 12 SCC 531 to argue jointly that no prima facie case under Section 3 (1) (X) of the SC/ST Act is made out against the applicant. It will be useful to reproduce para 6 of the Gorige Pentaiah's case herein below for convenience:

"6. In the instant case, the allegation of respondent no.3 in the entire complaint is that on 27.05.2004, the appellant abused them with the name of their caste. According to the basic ingredients of Section 3(1(x) of the Act, the complainant ought to have alleged that the appellant-accused was not a member of the Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and he (respondent no.3) was intentionally insulted or intimidated by the accused with intent to humiliate in a place within public view. In the entire complaint, nowhere it is mentioned that he appellant-accused was not a member of the Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled tribe and he intentionally insulted or intimidated with intent to humiliate respondent no.3 in a place within public view. When the basic ingredients of the offence are missing in the complaint, then permitting such a complaint to continue and to compel the appellant to face the rigmarole of the criminal trial would be totally unjustified leading to abuse of process of law."

This Court, therefore, is of the opinion that no offence under Section 3 (1)(X) of the SC/ST Act is made out against the applicant and, therefore, the victim may be permitted to compound the offence punishable under Section 504 & 506 of IPC including the one under the Special Act [Section 3 (1)(X) of the SC/ST], the ingredients of which are not made out. It will be advisable to permit the complainant/victim to compound the offences alleged against the applicant in the larger interest of the society.

Reliance may also be placed in Dina Nath Prasad & others vs. State & Anr., decided by Hon'ble Delhi High Court on 12th January, 2016 in Criminal Misc. Case no. 111 of 2016, Judgment rendered by Hon'ble Allahabad High Court on 18.11.2015 in C-482 Petition No. 31751 of 2015, Rajendra Sharma and others vs. State of U.P. & another and the Judgment rendered by Punjab and Haryana High Court on 29.05.2012 in Crl. Misc. Case No. 22608 of 2011, Satwinder Singh & another vs. State of Punjab & others.

While dealing with the inherent jurisdiction, 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 accept the settlement to quash the criminal proceedings. 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, the High Court can exercise it's powers, but after prima facie assessment of the circumstances/material mentioned therein. This Court is of the opinion that this matter deserves to be given a quietus as continuance of proceedings arising out of the first information report in question would be an exercise in futility.

In view of the above, compounding of the offences alleged against the applicant is allowed. As a consequence of the same, impugned summoning order, as also the entire proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 113 of 2017, relating to offences punishable under Sections 504 & 506 of IPC and Section 3 (1)(X) of the S.C./S.T. Act, pending in the Court of learned Special Sessions Judge, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar, are hereby quashed qua applicant.

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is thus disposed of in terms of compromise arrived at between the parties.