Zubair Alam Alias Sameer vs State And Anr

CRMC No.647/2018

In this petition filed under Section 561-A Cr.P.C., the petitioner has sought quashment of criminal challan No.305/CH titled State V/s Zubair Alam along with charge framed u/s 452/354/323 RPC on 16.01.2016, pending before the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu on the ground that the complainant/respondent and the accused/petitioner have entered into a compromise.

Similarly, the petition under Section 561-A Cr.P.C. bearing CRMC No.281/2014 has been filed by the petitioners for quashing criminal complaint titled Zuber Alam vs Showet Iqbal and others, pending before the learned Special Mobile Magistrate JMIC, Bhaderwah; and the petition under Section 561-A Cr.P.C. bearing CRMC No.385/2014 has been filed by the petitioners for quashing complaint u/s 107/117 Cr.P.C., pending before the Tehsildar Executive Magistrate 1st Class Bhaderwah titled State vs Khalid Gani and others.

During pendency of these petitions, a written compromise deed has been executed between the parties and the same has been placed on record. This Court vide order dated 14.11.2018 directed the Registrar Judicial to record the statements of the parties with regard to compromise deed. It appears that the statement of the complainant in case FIR No.492/2013 dated 23.12.2013, registered at Police Station, Domana under Sections 452/354/323 RPC, a challan of which is pending before the learned CJM, Jammu, has been recorded. The statement of the complainant is reproduced as under:

"Statement of Heena Batt (respondent No.2), age;26 years, D/o Shoket Iqbal Batt, R/o Mohalla Ustad, Tehsil and District Jammu.

Stated that I have resolved all the issues/disputes with petitioner i.e Zubair Alam alias Sameer and a compromise deed dated 10.03.2017 stands executed in this behalf. Petitioner has filed above said petition for quashing the criminal challan in which I am complainant. I have no objection if all the cases between us are quashed including the criminal challan pending against Zubair Alam before the court of Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate."

The statement of the petitioner Zubair Alam alias Sameer has also been recorded, which reads as under;

"Statement of Zubair Alam alias Sameer (petitioner), age;32 years, S/o Mohd Ishaq, R/o Village Dhareja, Tehsil Bhaderwah, District Doda, A/p Narwal Jammu.

Stated that I have resolved all the issues/disputes with respondent No.2 i.e Heena Batt and a compromise deed dated 10.03.2017 stands executed in this behalf. I have no objection in case the petitions u/s 561-A CrPC filed by Heena Batt bearing CRMC No.385/2014 and CRMC No.281/2014 are allowed and the proceedings initiated at my instance in the court of learned Mobile Magistrate Bhaderwah and Tehsildar, Bhaderwah are quashed."

I have also gone through the original compromise deed, the relevant para of which read as under:

"Now this deed is witnessed on the following terms and conditions given below as under:

That it has been agreed and decided between the both the parties, that both the parties to this present deed have mutually agreed that in future they will not interfere into peaceful life of each other and further abstained for filing any litigation against each other.

That it has been further agreed and decided between the parties that both parties will resolve their dispute and will withdraw their respective cases filed against each other from the respective courts and both the parties have agreed to this settlement.

That it has also been agreed and decided between the parties that both the parties will never interfere nor create any hindrance, obstruction or any kind of act against each other in future.

In witness whereof, the parties have signed this deed in presence of witnesses at Jammu on 10th day of March, 2017."

Bare perusal of the statements placed on record, it is evident that parties have entered into a compromise whereby they have amicable settled their differences.

In Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr., (2012) 10 SCC 303, it is held as under:-

The question is with regard to the inherent power of the High Court in quashing the criminal proceedings against an offender who has settled his dispute with the victim of the crime but the crime in which he is allegedly involved is not compoundable under Section 320 of the Code.

Section 482 of the Code, as its very language suggests, saves the inherent power of the High Court which it has by virtue of it being a superior court to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It begins with the words, „nothing in this Code‟ which means that the provision is an overriding provision. These words leave no manner of doubt that none of the provisions of the Code limits or restricts the inherent power. The guideline for exercise of such power is provided in Section 482 itself i.e., to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. As has been repeatedly stated that Section 482 confers no new powers on High Court; it merely safeguards existing inherent powers possessed by High Court necessary to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or to secure the ends of justice. It is equally well settled that the power is not to be resorted to if there is specific provision in the Code for the redress of the grievance of an aggrieved party. It should be exercised very sparingly and it should not be exercised as against the express bar of law engrafted in any other provision of the Code.

In different situations, the inherent power may be exercised in different ways to achieve its ultimate objective. Formation of opinion by the High Court before it exercises inherent power under Section 482 on either of the twin objectives, (i) to prevent abuse of the process of any court or (ii) to secure the ends of justice, is a sine qua non.

In the very nature of its constitution, it is the judicial obligation of the High Court to undo a wrong in course of administration of justice or to prevent continuation of unnecessary judicial process. This is founded on the legal maxim quando lex aliquid alicui concedit, conceditur et id sine qua res ipsa esse non potest. The full import of which is whenever anything is authorized, and especially if, as a matter of duty, required to be done by law, it is found impossible to do that thing unless something else not authorised in express terms be also done, may also be done, then that something else will be supplied by necessary intendment. Ex debito justitiae is inbuilt in such exercise; the whole idea is to do real, complete and substantial justice for which it exists. The power possessed by the High Court underSection 482 of the Code is of wide amplitude but requires exercise with great caution and circumspection.

It needs no emphasis that exercise of inherent power by the High Court would entirely depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. It is neither permissible nor proper for the court to provide a straitjacket formula regulating the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482. No precise and inflexible guidelines can also be provided.

Quashing of offence or criminal proceedings on the ground of settlement between an offender and victim is not the same thing as compounding of offence. They are different and not interchangeable. Strictly speaking, the power of compounding of offences given to a court under Section 320 is materially different from the quashing of criminal proceedings by the High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. In compounding of offences, power of a criminal court is circumscribed by the provisions contained in Section 320 and the court is guided solely and squarely thereby while, on the other hand, the formation of opinion by the High Court for quashing a criminal offence or criminal proceeding or criminal complaint is guided by the material on record as to whether the ends of justice would justify such exercise of power although the ultimate consequence may be acquittal or dismissal of indictment.

Where High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that dispute between the offender and victim has been settled although offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. No doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful effect on the public and consist in wrong doing that seriously endangers and threatens well-being of society and it is not safe to leave the crime-doer only because he and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the victim has been paid compensation, yet certain crimes have been made compoundable in law, with or without permission of the Court. In respect of serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc; or other offences of mental depravity under IPC or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between offender and victim can have no legal sanction at all. However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to victim and the offender and victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or F.I.R if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated. The above list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Each case will depend on its own facts and no hard and fast category can be prescribed.

55 B.S. Joshi1, (2003) 4 SCC 675 Nikhil Merchant (2008) 9 SCC 677 Manoj Sharma (2008) 16 SCC 1 and Shiji alias Pappu (2011) 10 SCC 705 do illustrate the principle that High Court may quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 of the Code and Section 320 does not limit or affect the powers of the High Court under Section 482. Can it be said that by quashing criminal proceedings in B.S. Joshi1, Nikhil Merchant, Manoj Sharma and Shiji alias Pappu, this Court has compounded the non-compoundable offences indirectly? We do not think so. There does exist the distinction between compounding of an offence under Section 320 and quashing of a criminal case by the High Court in exercise of inherent power under Section 482. The two powers are distinct and different although ultimate consequence may be same viz., acquittal of the accused or dismissal of indictment.

Having carefully considered the facts and circumstances of the present case, and also the law relating to the continuance of criminal cases where the complainant and the accused had settled their differences and had arrived at an amicable arrangement, I am of considered opinion that future trial is mere wastage of time of courts. As the parties have compromised, there would be no chance of conviction of any of the case. Offences for which criminal prosecution have been launched are not heinous one.

Consequently, these petitions are allowed and i) Criminal Challan No.305/CH titled 'State V/s Zubair Alam' along with charge framed u/s 452/354/323 RPC on 16.01.2016, pending before the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu; ii) criminal complaint titled Zuber Alam vs Showet Iqbal and others, pending before the learned Special Mobile Magistrate JMIC, Bhaderwah; and complaint u/s 107/117 Cr.P.C., pending before the Tehsildar Executive Magistrate 1st Class Bhaderwah titled State vs Khalid Gani and others, are quashed in view of compromise arrived at between the parties.

Copy of this order be sent to Courts below for compliance.