Smt. Savitri vs State of Uttarakhand

Umesh Chandra Dhyani, J.—A chargesheet was submitted against the applicant for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 504, 506 IPC. The Magistrate, having found a prima facie case against the applicant-accused, summoned him to face the trial, vide order dated 18.04.2007. Aggrieved against the same, present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. was filed by the accused-applicant.

Learned counsel for the parties made a statement before this Court that the parties have settled their disputes amicably. It is the statement of learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has executed the sale deed in respect of the disputed land in favour of respondent no. 2. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 admitted such fact.

Learned counsel for the parties drew the attention of this Court towards an affidavit dated 03.07.2007 (Annexure-5 to the petition), which is a copy of an affidavit filed by Maniram (respondent no. 2) in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar indicating therein that he has no grievance left against the applicant and he is not interested in prosecuting the applicant. The fact of amicable settlement between the parties is, thus, affirmed in the affidavit dated 03.07.2007.

The offences punishable under Sections 420, 504 & 506 IPC are compoundable offences within the scheme of Section 320 Cr.P.C. Reliance was placed upon the pronouncements of the Hon''ble Apex Court in K. Puttaraju Vs. A. Hanumegowda, and Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another, . Hon''ble Apex Court in Nikhil Merchant''s case (supra) held that Section 320 Cr.P.C. will not come in the way of High Court in exercising it''s inherent jurisdiction u/s 482 Cr.P.C. In Gian Singh''s case (supra), Hon''ble Apex Court has observed as below:-

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 predominatingly 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 respondent/complainant has buried all his differences against the applicant, therefore, he should be permitted to compound such offences against the applicant in the interest of justice.

As a consequence thereof, application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed. The chargesheet dated 12.04.2007, summoning order dated 18.04.2007 and proceedings of Criminal Case no. 1860/2007 pending before the C.J.M., Haridwar are hereby quashed.