Km. Uma And Another vs State Of Uttarakhand & Another

R.C. Khulbe, J

Since both the criminal misc. applications have been filed against the same order and with the same prayer, therefore, these are taken up together and disposed of by a common judgment.

By way of present applications, moved under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., applicants seek to quash the charge sheet no.12/2018 dated 06.03.2018 under Sections 498(A) /34 / 323 / 342 / 506 IPC, registered at P.S. Pithoragarh, summoning order dated 23.07.2018 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pithoragrah in Criminal Case No.425 of 2018, "State Vs. Bhagwant Singh and others", and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.425 of 2018, "State Vs. Bhagwant Singh and others", relating to offences punishable under Sections 498(A) /34 / 323 / 342 / 506 IPC, registered at P.S. Pithoragarh, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pithoragarh in terms of compromise arrived between the parties.

After perusal of the FIR, it would reveal that informant is the father of respondent no.2, who lodged an FIR on 15.02.2018 under Section 498A IPC at Police Station Pithoragarh and stated therein that marriage of his daughter was solemnized on 23.01.2018 to Bhagwan Singh S/o Late Nain Singh with Hindu rites and rituals. He further stated that in-laws of his daughter committed marpeet and demanded Rs.10 lacs and a Car in the shape of dowry on 25.01.2018. He further stated that on 30.01.2018 he went to his daughter's matrimonial house and took away his daughter. The Investigating Officer investigated the matter and filed charge sheet on 06.03.2018. The Investigating Officer included Sections 34/323/342/506 IPC. The Family Welfare Committee, District Pithoragrah decided that the case should be commenced under Section 498A IPC against all the accused.

The parties have filed Compounding Applications (CRMA No.1789 of 2019 & CRMA No.1795 of 2019) to show that the parties have buried their differences and have settled their disputes amicably.

It is further contended that the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC is a non-compoundable offence.

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 498A IPC is a 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 applications are allowed. The entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.425 of 2018, "State Vs. Bhagwant Singh and others", relating to offences punishable under Sections 498(A) /34 / 323 / 342 / 506 IPC, registered at P.S. Pithoragarh, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pithoragarh along with the charge sheet no.12/2018 dated 06.03.2018 and summoning order dated 23.07.2018 is hereby quashed, qua the applicants, on the basis of compromise arrived among the parties.

Present C482 applications stand disposed of, as above.

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