Mustakeem Ali vs State of Uttarakhand and Others

Umesh Chandra Dhyani, J.—Charge-sheet was submitted against the present applicant Mustakeem, for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 325, 307 and 506 of IPC. Cognizance was taken on the said charge-sheet. Accused-applicant was summoned to face the trial. Aggrieved against the same, present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. was filed.

A compounding application no. 721 of 2014 has been filed by the parties to indicate that they have buried their differences and have settled their disputes amicably. They prayed for compounding of offences complained of against the accused-applicants. A joint compromise application is also filed by the parties to affirm the same. Applicant Mustakeem is present in person, duly identified by his counsel Mr. M.A. Khan, Advocate. Applicant Mustakeem and Mrs. Sahista (respondent no. 3) have filed their affidavits. It was respondent no. 2, who lodged the first information report against the applicant. Respondent no. 3 is the sister of respondent no. 2. Respondent no. 2 is present in person duly identified by his counsel Mr. Manish Arora, Advocate, who says that the parties have settled their disputes amicably and have entered into compromise. Respondent no. 3 is not interested in prosecuting the applicant now. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 prayed that she be granted permission to compound the offences alleged against the applicant. Learned counsel for the private respondents also stated that he has no objection if the proceedings pending against the applicant are quashed.

The offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 325 and 506 of IPC are compoundable offences within the scheme of Section 320 of Cr.P.C. Section 307 of IPC is a non-compoundable offence. The question is-whether the victim should be permitted to compound the offences complained of against the applicant or not?

Learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court towards the ruling of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another, 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 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 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.

The instant case is squarely covered by the said ruling of the Hon''ble Supreme Court. The obvious reply to the question posed above is in the affirmative in view of the ruling of Hon''ble Apex Court in Gian Singh''s case (supra). Hon''ble Apex Court also permitted compounding of offence punishable u/s 307 IPC in the case of Dimpey Gujral and Others Vs. Union Territory Through Administrator, U.T. Chandigarh and Others, .

Compounding Application No. 721 of 2014 is thus allowed. As a consequence of the same, the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1883 of 2014, under Sections 323, 324, 325, 307 and 506 of IPC, pending in the Court of 2nd Additional Civil Judge, (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar are hereby quashed qua applicants.

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is thus disposed of in terms of compromise arrived at between the parties.