Lalit Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others

R.C. Khulbe, J

Compliance affidavit as well as supplementary affidavit is taken on record. Misc. applications, made therefor, stand disposed of.

By way of present application, moved under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., applicant seeks to quash the charge sheet dated 07.09.2018 and summoning order dated 08.10.2018 as well as entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.5996 of 2018, State Vs. Lalit Singh, under Section 307 IPC, registered at Police Station Mukhani, District-Nainital, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate 2nd Haldwani, District-Nainital and to stay the further proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case in terms of compromise arrived between the parties.

After perusal of the FIR, it would reveal respondent no.2, lodged an FIR on 08.01.2018 at Police Station Mukhani, Haldwani in respect of the incident dated 30.12.2018 alleging therein that on 30.12.2018 some unknown persons shot fire on his son Bhanu Pratap/ respondent no.3, when he was walking in a plot adjacent to the rented house after dinner in the night. It is also alleged that the assailant shot fire on the right leg of his son.

Respondent no.3 was medically examined on 31.12.2018 and as per medical report, gunshot injury was found on his right leg. The pistol was licensee and the applicant is a law abiding citizen having no criminal history.

The parties have filed Compounding Application (CRMA No.11440 of 2018) 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 307 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."

Hon'ble Apex Court also permitted compounding of offence punishable under Section 307 IPC in the case of Dimpy Gujral vs. Union Territory though Administrator U.T. Chandigarh and others, [2013 (123) AIC 119 (S.C.)].

A reference may also be had to the decision of Narendra Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another, reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, in this regard.

Parties are present in the Court today and they are duly identified by their respective counsel.

Although the offences punishable under Section 307 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 application is allowed. The entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.5996 of 2018, State Vs. Lalit Singh, under Section 307 IPC, registered at Police Station Mukhani, District-Nainital, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate 2nd Haldwani, District-Nainital along with the charge sheet dated 07.09.2018 and summoning order dated 08.10.2018 is hereby quashed, qua the applicant, on the basis of compromise arrived among the parties.

Present C482 application stands disposed of, as above.

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