Sanaul Sk., Eanamul Sk., Nasima Bibi and Bhola Sk. vs State of Jharkhand and Another

Rakesh Ranjan Prasad, J.—Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the State. The F.I.R. of Rajmahal (Radhanagar) P.S. Case no. 334 of 2012 instituted under Sections 341, 342, 323, 376 of the Indian Penal Code is being sought to be quashed on the ground that the parties, i.e. prosecutrix and the petitioner no. 1 have resolved their dispute whereby petitioner no. 1 has married the prosecutrix and both are living happily.

Learned counsel appearing appearing for the petitioners submits that in such situation, F.I.R. should be quashed, in view of the decision rendered in a case of Arun Goel vs. State of N.C.T. of Delhi and another, [Special Leave to Appeal (Cr.) No. 2900 of 2009].

Allegation what has been made against the petitioner no. 1 is that he having entered into a room of the prosecutrix committed rape upon her. On such allegation, a case was registered as Rajmahal (Radhanagar) P.S. Case no. 334 of 2012 u/s 341, 342, 323, 376 of the Indian Penal Code.

In course of time, according to learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the prosecutrix entered into a compromise with the petitioner no. 1 and thereby the petitioner no. 1 married the prosecutrix and both are living together happily. In such situation, a prayer has been made to quash the F.I.R. in view of the decision rendered in a case referred to above.

This factual position is being admitted by the learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Party no. 2.

The question does arise as to whether this kind of case where the offence is heinous, the court can allow the accused to compound the offence when it is not compoundable in terms of provision of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

I need not to travel far in search of the answer as the Hon''ble Supreme Court in a case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another, has been pleased to lay down the guideline given hereunder with respect to invocation of power by the High Court u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the matter relating to compromise of the cases which are not compoundable in terms of the provision as contained in Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:

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 plentitude 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 case 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.

In view of the settled principle of law, I do not find any merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners as it is the case where allegation has been made that the petitioner no. 1 committed rape upon the prosecutrix. Thus, this application stands dismissed.