CRLA/284/2011 of SATPAL SINGH AND ORS Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Criminal Appeal No. 284 of 2011

Satpal Singh and others … Appellants

State of Uttarakhand … Respondent

Mr. S.R.S. Gill, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. K.S. Rawal, Brief Holder for the State/respondent.

U. C. Dhyani, J. (Oral)

1.Appellants herein were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge/First FTC, Haldwani, District Nainital, for the offences punishable under Sections 307 read with Sections 34, 504, 506 IPC and were sentenced accordingly vide order dated 16.11.2011.

2.Lest the Criminal Appeal is heard on merits, the injured person/victim has filed the compounding application indicating therein that he does not want to prosecute the appellants/convicts and wants that the convicts should be exonerated from all the charges, inasmuch as an amicable settlement has taken place between him and the appellants/convicts, with the interventions of some elderly persons of the society.

3.Injured Jagdish Apar Singh is present, in person, before the Court and duly identified by his counsel Mr. K.S. Rawal. Accused persons are also present, in person, before the Court and duly identified by their counsel Mr. S.R.S. Gill.

4.Injured as well as accused persons stated, in unequivocal terms, that they have buried their differences amicably. Victim Jagdish Apar Singh prayed that he may

be permitted to compound the offences, proved against the accused persons/convicts.

5.The question, which arises for consideration of this Court, is whether the injured should be permitted to compound the offences proved against the appellants or not?

6.Here comes reply, in the form of the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another, (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 160.

7.The Apex Court, in the aforesaid decision, 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 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 havingoverwhelmingly 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.”

8.There are catena of judgment including Nikhil Merchant vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2008) 9 SCC 667 and Narendra Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another, (2014) 6 SCC 466,to holdthat inherent powers of the Court will not come in the way of the High Court in permitting the compromise in non-compoundable offences.

9.After hearing the parties along with their learned counsels and having gone through the record of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the injured Jagdish Apar Singh should be permitted to compound the offences proved against the convicts/appellants in the interest of justice.

10.Compounding Application (CRMA No.163 of 2016) and Compromise Application (CRMA No.164 of 2016) are accordingly allowed. As consequence thereof, order dated

16.11.2011 is set aside. Appellants/convicts are acquitted from all the charges, levelled and proved against them, in view of amicable settlement between the parties. 11.In the above terms, this Criminal Appeal is disposed of.

Nadim

(U. C. Dhyani, J.)

Vacation Judge 04.02.2016