C482/1585/2014 of Darshan Lal Vs State Of Uttarakhand AND ANOTHER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Criminal Misc. Application No.1585 of 2014

Darshan Lal … Applicant

State of Uttarakhand and another … Respondents

Mr. Parikshit Saini, Advocate present for the applicant. Mr. V. K. Jemini, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. Kuldeep Rawal, Brief Holder present for the State. Mr. Mohd. Safdar, Advocate present for the respondent no.2.

U. C. Dhyani, J. (Oral)

1.A chargesheet was submitted against the applicant for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC. Aggrieved against the same, present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was filed by the accused-applicant.

2.Compounding Application (CRMA No.1944 of 2014) is filed before this Court to show that the parties have settled their disputes amicably. The said application is supported by the affidavits of respondent no.2 (Puran Chandra) and applicant (Darshan Lal), who are present in person, duly identified by their respective counsel. An FIR was lodged against the applicant alleging therein, among other things, that forged High School Marksheet was prepared and used by Darshan Lal (applicant herein) to contest the election for the post of Chairman of Cooperative Society, Peethpur, Haridwar. Darshan Lal-applicant says that although, he was elected as Chairman of Cooperative Society, but consequent upon the complaint of respondent no.2, he has resigned from such post. The respondent no.2/complainant submitted before this Court that he does not wish to prosecute the applicant, in as much as, compromise has

taken place between them. The complainant prayed that he may be permitted to compound the offences against the applicant, the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. be allowed and the proceedings of the criminal case be quashed.

3.Offence under Section 420 IPC is compoundable offence within the scheme of Section 320 Cr.P.C. (with the leave of the Court) and others are non-compoundable offences within such scheme. The question is – whether the complainant should be permitted to compound such offences against the applicant or not?

4.Learned counsel for the parties drew attention of this Court towards the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Narendra Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another, (2014) 6 SCC 466, Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another, (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 160 and Nikhil Merchant vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2008) 9 SCC 667. 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 under Section 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 criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to 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 havedue 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.”

5.Since the 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.

6.Compounding Application is allowed. As consequence thereof, application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed on the basis of compromise. The impugned cognizance order dated 14.08.2014 and the proceedings of Criminal Case No.2620/2014

pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate 2[nd], Haridwar, District Haridwar are hereby quashed on the basis of compromise between the parties.

7.It is made clear that the compromise between the respondent no.2 and the applicant will not render the High School Certificate of the applicant valid. In other words, this judgment will not authenticate the validity or otherwise of the High School certificate obtained by the applicant. If the High School certificate is forged, the same will not become genuine only because C482 petition filed by the accused-applicant has been allowed on the basis of compromise between him and the complainant.

(U. C. Dhyani, J.)

Dated 09[th] December, 2014 Rawat