Rajeev Anand vs State of Uttarakhand

@DELETEUPPERDATA

Umesh Chandra Dhyani, J.—Since the aforesaid applications under section 482 Cr.P.C. arise out of the same charge-sheet, therefore, both the cases are being decided by this common judgment for the sake of brevity and convenience. The applicants were summoned to face the trial for the offences punishable under sections 406 IPC read with section 120-B IPC on the basis of a charge-sheet submitted against them. Aggrieved against the same, present applications under section 482 Cr.P.C. were filed by the accused-applicants.

Compounding Applications (CRMA No. 1196/2014 & 1197/2014) are filed before this Court to show that the parties have settled their disputes amicably. Two of the applicants, namely, Ravindra Kumar Chauhan and V.K. Bhaskar Rao and the respondent No. 2-Rajendra Sharma have filed their affidavits indicating the same. Respondent No. 2 is present in person, duly identified by his Counsel Mr. Lok Pal Singh. He says that since all the dues have been cleared by the accused-applicants, therefore, he does not wish to prosecute the applicants. Respondent No. 2 prayed that he may be permitted to compound the offences against the applicants, the applications under section 482 Cr.P.C. be allowed and the proceedings of the criminal case be quashed. The parties have also filed a copy of the settlement deed in the form of Annexure-1 to the compounding applications. Applicants and respondent No. 2 are the signatories to such settlement deed.

Offence punishable under section 406 IPC is compoundable offence within the scheme of section 320 Cr.P.C. (with the leave of the Court). The question is--whether the complainant should be permitted to compound such offence against the applicants or not?

The permission can be granted to the respondent No. 2 to compound such offence by the High Court in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C. in view of the judgments of Hon''ble Supreme Court in Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another, and Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another,

The Hon''ble Supreme Court, in Gian Singh''s case (supra), has 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 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."

The reply to the question posed in para 4 of this judgment is, therefore, in the ''affirmative''. Since the complainant has buried all his differences against the applicants, therefore, he should be permitted to compound such offence against the applicants in the interest of justice. Compounding Applications are allowed in the interest of justice. As a consequence thereof, both applications under section 482 Cr.P.C. are allowed. The charge-sheet, summoning order dated 1.5.2014 and the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 589/2014 pending in the Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar are hereby quashed.