Smt. Rameshwari Devi vs State of Uttarakhand and Another

Umesh Chandra Dhyani, J.—The applicant, by means of present application/petition u/s 482 of Cr.P.C., seeks to quash the charge-sheet No. 28 of 2009 and the cognizance order dated 28.03.2009 as well as the entire proceedings of criminal case No. 1310 of 2009, State vs. Awal Singh and others, pending in the court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate II, Dehradun.

An FIR was lodged by informant/respondent No. 2 against the accused applicant on 10.10.2008, in police station Patel Nagar, District Dehradun for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 406 of IPC. After the investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against the accused-applicant in respect of selfsame offences.

A Compounding Application, being CRMA No. 1515 of 2013, is moved on behalf of informant/respondent No. 2 to indicate that she has entered into compromise with the accused-applicant. A joint compromise is filed by the parties in the Court. Informant/respondent No. 2 Smt. Beena Rawat is present in person before the Court, duly identified by her counsel. Informant/respondent No. 2 stated that she is not keen to prosecute the accused-applicant as the parties have entered into a compromise and have settled their dispute amicably.

Offences punishable under Sections 420 and 406 of IPC are compoundable offences, with the permission of the Court, within the scheme of Section 320 of Cr.P.C. The only question which is left for consideration of this Court is whether the informant/respondent No. 2 should be permitted to compound such offences complained of against the accused-applicant or not?

Hon''ble Supreme Court of Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another, has permitted compounding of such offences. The Hon''ble Apex Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another, has observed that the 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. Relevant paragraph of Gian Singh''s case (supra) is reproduced here-in-under for ready reference:

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.

Since the informant/respondent No. 2 has buried her differences with the accused-applicant, therefore, the respondent No. 2 should be permitted to compound such offences against the accused-applicant in the interest of society as well as in the interest of justice.

Compounding Application CRMA No. 1515 of 2013 is allowed. Consequently, the application u/s 482 is also allowed. Charge-sheet No. 28 of 2009 and the cognizance order dated 28.03.2009 as well as the entire proceedings of criminal case No. 1310 of 2009, State v. Awal Singh and others, pending in the court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate II, Dehradun are hereby quashed on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.