Vajir Singh vs State of Uttarakhand

@DELETEUPPERDATA

Umesh Chandra Dhyani, J.—The petitioner, by means of present Criminal Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeks to quash the impugned F.I.R. No. 37/2014, under section 307 I.P.C., Police Station Dineshpur, District Udham Singh Nagar. An FIR was lodged by respondent No. 4 against the petitioner, who is in jail for the offence punishable under section 307 IPC.

A Compounding Application (CRMA No. 8041 of 2014) is filed by the parties before this Court to show that they have settled their disputes amicably. Smt. Veyant Kaur, Santosh and Satish Kumar have filed their affidavits in support of the compounding application. Whereas Santosh Kumar is the informant, who lodged the FIR against the petitioner, Satish Kumar (respondent No. 5 herein) is the victim. As per the affidavit of victim, he is not interested in prosecuting the petitioner any more. Learned Counsel for both the parties submitted that since the parties have settled their disputes amicably with the intervention of few elderly persons of their community, they (victim & informant) may be permitted to compound the offences against the petitioner and the criminal writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India be allowed and the proceedings of the aforesaid FIR number be quashed.

The offence complained of against the petitioner under section 307 I.P.C. is non-compoundable offence within the scheme of section 320 Cr.P.C. The question is--whether the victim should be permitted to compound such offence against the petitioner or not? Learned Counsel for the parties stated that the victim sustained injury on his left shoulder (non-vital part). The permission can be granted to the victim to compound such offence in view of the judgments of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Dimpey Gujral and Others Vs. Union Territory Through Administrator, U.T. Chandigarh and Others, and Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another, .

The Hon''ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh''s case (supra) has observed as follows:--

"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 under section 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 life 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 victim has buried all his differences against the petitioner, therefore, he should be permitted to compound such offence against the petitioner in the interest of justice. Compounding Application is allowed in the interest of justice. As a consequence thereof, criminal writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is allowed on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties. The impugned F.I.R. No. 37/2014, under section 307 I.P.C., Police Station Dineshpur, District Udham Singh Nagar is hereby quashed. Let the petitioner be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not wanted in any other case.