Rashid and others vs State of Uttarakhand and another

By means of present Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant seeks to quash the charge sheet dated 19.12.2016 as well as the

entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 362 of 2017, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B IPC, pending in

the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Vikas Nagar, District Dehradun.

A compromise application being CRMA 227 of 2018 has been filed with the prayer that the parties have buried their differences and have

settled their disputes amicably. Respondent no. 2 (Smt. Hanifa) is present in person, duly identified by her counsel Ms. Razia Sultan, Advocate.

She says that she has no grievance left against the present applicant sand she is not interested in prosecuting the applicants, inasmuch as, the

dispute has been settled amicably between she and the applicant with the intervention of some elderly persons of the society. Petitioner/applicant

no. 1 Rashid is present in person duly identified by his counsel Mr. Abhishek Verma, Advocate.

The question, which arises for consideration of this Court, iswhether the respondent no. 2 should be permitted to compound the offences alleged

against the present applicant or not?

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.

The reply to the question, posed by this Court in para no. 3 of this Judgment, therefore, is in the affirmative. Otherwise also, it will be a futile

exercise if proceedings of the criminal case against the applicant are kept pending when the parties have settled their disputes amicably.

In view of the above, compounding of the offences alleged against the applicant is allowed. As a consequence of the same, the charge sheet

dated 19.12.2016 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 362 of 2017, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468,

471 & 120-B IPC, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Vikas Nagar, District Dehradun, are hereby quashed qua applicants.

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is thus disposed of in terms of compromise arrived at between the parties.

Urgency application stands disposed of.