Satish Chandra Tripathi vs State of Uttarakhand and Others

Umesh Chandra Dhyani, J.—Charge-sheet was submitted against the present applicant Satish Chandra Tripathi, for the offence punishable u/s 406 of IPC. Cognizance was taken on the same and the accused-applicant was summoned to face the trial. Aggrieved against the same, present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. was filed.

A compounding application has been filed by the parties to indicate that they have buried their differences and have settled their disputes amicably. They prayed for compounding of offence complained of against the accused-applicant. Respondent no. 2 is present in person, duly identified by her counsel Mr. P.C. Petshali, who says that she (respondent no. 2) is no more interested in prosecuting the applicant. She further says that she has received a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- from the applicant. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 also stated that she has no objection if the proceedings pending against the applicant are quashed.

The offence complained of against the applicant u/s 406 of IPC is a compoundable offence within the scheme of Section 320 of Cr.P.C. The question, which is left for consideration of this Court, is-whether the victim (respondent no. 2) should be permitted to compound the offence alleged against the applicant or not?

Learned counsel for the parties relied upon B.S. Joshi and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Another, and Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another, . Learned counsel for the respondent no. 2, therefore, prayed that she should be permitted to compound the offence alleged against the accused-applicant.

Learned counsel for the applicant 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 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 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.

As a consequence thereof, application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed. The Criminal Case No. 1364 of 2004 captioned as State vs. Satish Tripathi, u/s 406 of IPC, pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun and the criminal proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby set aside against the applicant on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties.