C482/110/2016 of Sanjay Kumar AND ANOTHER Vs State Of Uttarakhand AND ANOTHER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Criminal Misc. Application No.110 of 2016

Sanjay Kumar & Anr … Applicants

State of Uttarakhand and Another … Respondents

Mr. K.S. Verma, Advocate present for the applicants. Ms. Geeta Parihar, Brief Holder present for the State/respondent no. 1. Mr. P.C. Petshali, Advocate present for the respondent no. 2.

U. C. Dhyani, J. (Oral)

1.A chargesheet has been submitted against six accused persons including the applicants for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 506 and 120B IPC passed in Criminal Case No. 2140/2003 State vs. Rishipal & Others pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun.

2.Compounding Application is filed before this Court to show that the parties have settled their disputes amicably. The said application is supported by the affidavit of respondent no. 2 (Bimla Singh) who is present in person, duly identified by her counsel Mr. P.C. Petshali, Advocate. She says that she is not interested in prosecuting the applicants, inasmuch as, compromise has taken place between them. The complainant prayed that she may be permitted to compound the offences against the applicants, the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. be allowed and the proceedings of the criminal case be quashed.

3.Accused / applicants Prem Prakash Kalra and Sanjay Kumar Kannojiya are also present in person before this Court duly identified by their counsel Mr. K.S. Verma. They also say that compounding has taken place between them and Ms. Bimla Singh / respondent no. 2.

4.Whereas few of the offences are compoundable offences within the scheme of Section 320 Cr.P.C., the others, especially Sections 467 and 468 IPC are non-compoundable offences. The question is –

whether the complainant (victim) should be permitted to compound such offences against the applicants or not?

5.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

Court in exercising it’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

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 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 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.”

6.Since the complainant (person cheated/victim) has buried all her differences against the applicants, therefore, she should be permitted to compound such offences against the applicants in the interest of justice.

7.Compounding Application is allowed. As consequence thereof, application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed on the basis of compromise. In view of the above, the impugned criminal case no. 2140/2003 State vs. Rishipal & Others pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun and criminal proceedings initiated on behalf of the respondent no. 2 are quashed qua applicants only.

Dated 02[nd] February, 2016 Nitesh/Nishant

(U. C. Dhyani, J.)

Vacation Judge