WPCRL/516/2014 of Vijay Gupta AND OTHERS Vs State Of Uttarakhand AND OTHERS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Criminal Writ Petition No.516 of 2014

Vijay Gupta and others … Petitioners

State of Uttarakhand and others

… Respondents

Mr. Arvind Vashistha, Advocate with Mr. Vivek Pathak, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. V. S. Pal, AGA for the State. Mr. Vivek Shukla, Advocate for the respondent no.3.

U. C. Dhyani, J. (Oral)

1.The petitioners, by means of present Criminal Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seek to quash the impugned F.I.R. registered as case crime no.280 of 2013, under Sections 498-A, 377 IPC and Section ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Ranipur, District Haridwar.

2.A Compounding Application (CRMA No.4724 of 2014) is filed before this Court to show that the parties have settled their disputes amicably. The affidavits of petitioner no.1 and respondent no.3 have also been filed to affirm the same. Respondent no.3, Anchal Gupta is present in person, duly identified by her counsel Mr. Vivek Shukla. The petitioners no.1 & 4 (Vijay Gupta and Paritosh Gupta respectively) are also present in person before this Court, duly identified by their counsel Mr. Arvind Vashistha. Victim/respondent no.3 submitted that she does not wish to prosecute the petitioners, in as much as, compromise has taken place between them. No offence u/s 377 IPC was committed. She prayed that she may be permitted to compound the offences against the petitioners and the criminal writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India be allowed and the proceedings of the aforesaid case crime number be quashed.

3.None of the offences alleged against the petitioners are compoundable offences within the scheme of Section 320 Cr.P.C. The question is – whether the complainant should be permitted to compound such offences against the petitioners or not? The permission can be granted to the victim to compound such offences in view of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in B. S. Joshi (2003) 4 SCC 675, Dimpey Gujral vs. Union Territory through Administrator U.T. Chandigarh and others 2013 (123) AIC 119, Nikhil Merchant vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2008) 9 SCC 667 and Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 160. 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. 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 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 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 theoffences 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.”

4.Since the victim has buried all her differences against the petitioners, therefore, she should be permitted to compound such offences against the petitioners in the interest of justice.

5.Compounding Application (CRMA No.4724/2014) is allowed in the interest of justice. As consequence thereof, criminal writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is allowed and the F.I.R. alongwith the proceedings of case crime No.280 of 2013, under Sections 498-A, 377 IPC and Section ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Ranipur, District Haridwar, are hereby quashed.

Dated 13[th] May, 2014 Rawat

(U. C. Dhyani, J.)