Rishabh 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 Criminal Case No. 2166/2014, State vs. Rajat & others, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar, u/s 506 IPC.

Respondent No. 2 lodged the FIR against the applicants for the offences punishable under Sections 323 & 506 IPC, Police Station Gadarpur, Udham Singh Nagar. After the investigation, a chargesheet was submitted against the applicants for the offence punishable u/s 506 IPC. Accused-applicants were summoned to face the trial by the Magistrate concerned, vide order dated 21.05.2014. Aggrieved against the same, present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. was filed by accused-applicants.

A Compounding Application (CRMA No. 780 of 2014) is filed before this Court to show that the parties have settled their disputes amicably. Complainant (Shyam Chand-respondent No. 2) is present in person, duly identified by his counsel Mr. Gaurav Singh, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Vikas Guglani, Advocate. All the applicants are also present in person before this Court, duly identified by their counsel Mr. Harshpal Sekhon. Affidavits have been filed by applicant No. 4 and the complainant that the parties have settled their disputes amicably. Complainant (Shyam Chand) stated before this Court that he does not wish to prosecute the applicants, in as much as, a compromise has taken place between them. The complainant prayed that he may be permitted to compound the offence against the applicants and the application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. be allowed.

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.

Offences punishable under Sections 323 & 506 IPC complained of against the applicants are compoundable offences within the scheme of Section 320 Cr.P.C. The question is-whether the complainant should be permitted to compound such offences against the applicants or not?

The permission can be granted to the complainant to compound such offences in view of the judgment of the 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 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 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 preceding para of this judgment is, therefore, in the ''affirmative''. Since the complainant has buried all her differences against the applicants, therefore, he should be permitted to compound such offences against the applicants in the interest of justice.

Compounding Application (CRMA No. 780/2014) is allowed in the interest of justice. As a consequence thereof, application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed. The chargesheet dated 10.12.2012, summoning order dated 21.05.2014 and the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 2166/2014, State vs. Rajat & others, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar u/s 506 IPC are hereby quashed.