C482/1290/2017 of Gulfam AND OTHERS Vs State Of Uttarakhand AND OTHERS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND ATNAINITAL

Criminal Misc. Application No. 1290 of 2017

(Under Section 482 Cr.P.C.)

Gulfam & others .....….…… Applicants

versus

State of Uttarkhand & others ………. Respondents

Mr. Mohd. Safdar, Advocate for the applicants Mr. P.S. Uniyal, Brief Holder for the State. Mr. Parikshit Saini, Advocate for the respondent nos.2 to 4.

U.C. Dhyani, J. (Oral)

Theapplicants, by means of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seek to quash/set-aside the impugned charge sheet dated 13.2.2017, summoning order dated 15.4.2017 and entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.212/2017 (Case Crime No.19/2017) under Sections 323, 324, 504 & 308 of IPC, P.S. Kotwali Gangnahar Roorkee, District-Haridwar, pending before the Judicial Magistrate 2[nd] Roorkee, District-Haridwar.

2. compounding application being CRMA No.1653 of 2017 is filed by the parties to indicate that they have buried their differences and have settled their dispute amicably. Mr. Bablu Ahmad, Sonu and Amir (complainant/victim/injured) are present in person, duly identified by their counsel Mr. Parikshit Saini, Advocate. Mr. Gulfam (applicant/accused) is also present in person, duly identified by his counsel Mr. Mohd. Safdar, Advocate.

3. The question which arises for consideration of this Court is-whether the victim should be permitted to compound the offences alleged against the applicants 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 Nikhil Merchant’s case (supra)held that Section 320 Cr.P.C. will not come in the way of High Court in exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In case Gian Singh’s(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 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 theoffences 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. The instant case is squarely covered by the said ruling of Hon’ble Supreme Court. The obvious reply to the question posed above is in the affirmative in view of the ruling of Hon’ble Apex Court in Gian Singh’s case (supra). Hon’ble Apex Court also permitted compounding of offence punishable under Section 307 IPC in the case of Dimpy Gujral vs. Union Territory through Administrator U.T. Chandigarh and others, [2013 (123) AIC (S.C.)].

6. The reply to the question, posed by this Court in para no.3 of this Judgment, therefore, is in the affirmative. Otherwise also, it will be futile exercise if proceedings of the criminal case against the applicants are kept pending when the parties have . settled their disputes amicably

7. In view of the above, compounding of the offences alleged against the applicants is allowed. As consequence of the same, the charge-sheet dated 13.2.2017, summoning order dated 15.4.2017 and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.212/2017 (Case Crime No.19/2017) under Sections 323, 324, 504 & 308 of IPC, P.S. Kotwali Gangnahar Roorkee, District-Haridwar, pending before the Judicial Magistrate 2[nd] Roorkee, District-Haridwar, are hereby quashed.

8. Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is thus disposed of in terms of compromise arrived at between the . parties

A.kaur

(U. C. Dhyani, J.)

18.09.2017