Radhey Shayam Yadav vs State of Uttarakhand

Umesh Chandra Dhyani, J.—The applicants, by means of Application u/s 482 Cr. P.C., seek to quash the proceedings of Sessions Trial no. 108 of 2013, under Sections 307, 504, 506 read with Section 34 IPC, pending in the court of Sessions Judge, District Udham Singh Nagar.

A Compounding Application (CRMA No. 910 of 2014) is filed before this Court to show that the parties have settled their disputes amicably. Informant (Maya Singh-respondent no. 2) and injured-Vineet Singh are present in person, duly identified by their counsel Mr. D.C.S. Rawat. All the applicants are also present in person before this Court, duly identified by their counsel Mr. Vipul Sharma. Affidavits have been filed by applicant no. 1-Radhey Shyam and injured-Vineet Singh that the parties have settled their disputes amicably. Informant and injured persons stated before this Court that they do not wish to prosecute the applicants, in as much as, a compromise has taken place between them. They prayed that they may be permitted to compound the offences against the applicants and the application u/s 482 Cr. P.C. be allowed.

While some of the offences alleged against the applicants are compoundable within the scheme of Section 320 Cr. P.C., but offence punishable u/s 307 IPC is non-compoundable offence. The question is - whether the informant and the injured persons should be permitted to compound such offences against the applicants or not? The permission can be granted to the victim to compound such offence in view of the judgments of Hon''ble Supreme Court in Dimpey Gujral and Others Vs. Union Territory Through Administrator, U.T. Chandigarh and Others, The Hon''ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another, has observed as follows:-

"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 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 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 predominatingly 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."

Since the informant and the injured have buried all their differences against the applicants, therefore, they should be permitted to compound such offences against the applicants in the interest of justice.

Compounding Application is, therefore, allowed. As a consequence thereof, application u/s 482 Cr. P.C. is also allowed. The proceedings of Sessions Trial no. 108 of 2013, under Sections 307, 504, 506 read with Section 34 IPC, pending in the court of Sessions Judge, District Udham Singh Nagar are hereby quashed on the basis of compromise between the parties.