Rajendra Kumar vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr

LOK PAL SINGH, J.

By means of present writ petition, petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned F.I.R./case crime no.126 of 2017

dated 30.09.2017, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC, registered at P.S. Premnagar, District Dehradun against the petitioner.

A compromise application being CRMA No.4108 of 2018 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner stating that the parties have entered into

compromise, hence, impugned FIR may be quashed. An affidavit has also been filed by respondent no.2 indicating that the parties have settled the

score outside the court and that he does not want to pursue the matter and that FIR may be quashed.

Most of the offences complained of against the petitioner are non-compoundable offences within the Scheme of Section 320 Cr. P.C. The question

which arises for consideration of this Court is - whether the respondent no. 3 should be permitted to compound the offences complained of against the

petitioner or not?

Â

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 petitioner drew 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 victims 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 aforesaid rulings of the Honble Supreme Court. The obvious reply to the question posed above is in the

affirmative in view of the ruling of Honble Apex Court in Gian Singh’s case (supra).

In view of the above, the impugned FIR dated 30.09.2017 being F.I.R. No.126 of 2017, under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC, lodged by

respondent no. 2, at Police Station Premnagar, District Dehradun is hereby quashed qua the petitioner, on the basis of compromise arrived at between

the parties.

Writ petition stands disposed of, as above.

No order as to costs.