C482/115/2013 of PRADIP KUMAR BISWAS AND OTHERS Vs FAGUN SINGH

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND ATNAINITAL

Criminal Misc. Application No. 115 of 2013

(Under Section 482 Cr.P.C.)

Pradeep Kumar Bishwas & others .....….…… Applicants

versus

Fagun Singh

………. Respondent

Mr. Piyush Garg, Advocate for the applicants.

U.C. Dhyani, J. (Oral)

Theapplicants, by means of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seek to quash the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.312 of 2011, Fagun Singh vs. Pradeep Kumar Bishwas under Sections 420, 468, 471, 34 IPC, pending in the Court of Civil Judge (SD)/Judicial Magistrate 1[st], New Tehri, Tehri Garhwal.

2. Compromise has been filed by the applicants (copy annexure nos.3 & 4 to the C-482 petition). Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the parties have buried their differences and have settled their dispute amicably.

3. One of the offences is compoundable within scheme of Section 320 Cr.P.C., but permission may be granted to the complainant-victim to compound other offences in view of B.S. Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana and another, (2003)4 SCC 675, wherein it has been held as below:

“If for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necessary, Section 320 Cr.P.C. would not be bar to the exercise of power of quashing. It is, however,

different matter depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case whether to exercise or not such power.”

4. Thus, the High Court, in exercise of its inherent power can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and Section 320 Cr.P.C. does not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

5. 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?

6. . 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 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.”

7. While deciding whether to exercise its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or not, timings of settlement play crucial role. Those cases where the settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged commission of offence and the matter is still under investigation, the High Court may accept the settlement to

quash the criminal proceedings. It is because of the reason that at this stage the investigation is still on and even the charge-sheet has not been filed. Likewise, those cases, where the charge is framed but the evidence is yet to start, the High Court can exercise its powers, but after prima facie assessment of the circumstances/material mentioned therein. This Court is of the opinion that this matter deserves to be given quietus as continuance of proceedings arising out of the first information report in question would be an exercise in futility.

8. Reliance may also be placed in Dina Nath Prasad & others vs. State & Anr., decided by Hon’ble Delhi High Court on 12[th] January, 2016 in Criminal Misc. Case no. 111 of 2016, Judgment rendered by Hon’ble Allahabad High Court on 18.11.2015 in C-482 Petition No. 31751 of 2015, Rajendra Sharma and others vs. State of U.P. & another and the Judgment rendered by Punjab and Haryana High Court on 29.05.2012 in Crl. Misc. Case No. 22608 of 2011, Satwinder . Singh & another vs. State of Punjab & others

9. The reply to the question, posed by this Court in para no.5 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

10. In view of the above, compounding of the offences alleged against the applicants is allowed. As consequence of the same, impugned cognizance order, as also the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.312 of 2011, Fagun Singh vs. Pradeep

Biswas under Sections 420, 468, 471, 34 IPC, is pending in the Court of Civil Judge (SD)/Judicial Magistrate 1[st], New Tehri, Tehri Garhwal.

11. 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.)

05.07.2017