Sahjahan and Others vs State of Uttarakhand and Another

Umesh Chandra Dhyani, J.—The applicants, by means of present petition moved u/s 482 Cr.P.C., seek to quash the charge-sheet dated 05.01.2008, summoning order dated 02.12.2008 and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1872 of 2008, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B I.P.C., pending before Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar. An F.I.R. was lodged by respondent No. 2 against six named accused including the applicants for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B I.P.C. After the investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against all the named accused. Cognizance was taken on the said charge-sheet and the accused persons including the applicants were summoned to face the trial for the said charges. Aggrieved against the same, present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. was filed.

CRMA No. 2079 of 2013 is filed on behalf of the applicants to show that the parties have buried their differences and have settled their disputes amicably. A certified copy of the affidavit of the respondent No. 2 is brought on record along with the affidavit of the applicant. According to the affidavit of the respondent No. 2, accused persons have repaid all the dues to him and no money is outstanding against them. Learned counsel further stated that such a compromise between the parties took place on 14.01.2008 itself. The same was brought to the notice of investigating officer and the investigating officer ought not to have submitted charge-sheet against the accused persons.

None has appeared for respondent No. 2 to deny such statement of learned counsel for the applicant or to deny the authenticity of the affidavit filed by respondent No. 2.

The offences complained of against the applicants are under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B I.P.C. Offences under Sections 406 and 420 I.P.C. are compoundable offences within the scheme of Section 320 Cr.P.C. The only question which is left for consideration of this Court is - whether the complainant should be permitted to compound the offences against accused persons u/s 467, 468, 471 and 120B I.P.C. 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, and has held as below:

If for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, quashing of F.I.R. becomes necessary, Section 320 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 F.I.R. or complaint and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers u/s 482 of the Code.

The principles of law propounded in B.S. Joshi and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Another, has been applied with approval in the case of Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another, .

Learned counsel for the applicants also drew the attention of this Court towards the ruling of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another, , 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 F.I.R. 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 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 predominantly 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 injustices 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. 5 of this judgment is, therefore, in the affirmative. Otherwise also, it will be a futile exercise if proceeding of the criminal case against the applicants are kept pending when the parties have settled their disputes amicably. As a consequence thereof, application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed. The charge-sheet dated 05.01.2008, summoning order dated 02.12.2008 and the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1872 of 2008, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B I.P.C., pending before Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar are hereby set aside qua applicants on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties.