WPCRL/1334/2017 of Binvant Singh Dhillan Vs State Of Uttarakhand AND OTHERS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND ATNAINITALCriminal Writ Petition No. 1334 of 2017

Binvant Singh Dhillan ....….……Petitioner

versus

State of Uttarakhand and others ………. Respondents

with

Criminal Writ Petition No. 2038 of 2017

Birendra Singh

..….……Petitioner

versus

State of Uttarakhand and others ………. Respondents

with

Criminal Writ Petition No. 1330 of 2017

Harneet Kaur Dhillan ....….……Petitioner

versus

State of Uttarakhand and others ………. Respondents

with

Criminal Writ Petition No. 2037 of 2017

Surjeet Kaur

....….……Petitioner

versus

State of Uttarakhand and others ………. Respondents

Mr. Ahrar Baig, Advocate, present for the petitioners. Mr. J.S. Virk, A.G.A, present for the State/respondents no.1 & 2. Mr. Mohd. Azim, Advocate for respondent no. 3.

U.C. Dhyani, J.

The writ petitioners, by means of present Writ Petitions, seek to quash the FIR dated 06.08.2017 as Case Crime No. 87 of

2017, under Section 420 of IPC, lodged by respondent No. 3, at Police Station Kelakhera, District Udham Singh Nagar.

2. Compounding applications being CLMA No.16500 of 2017, CLMA No. 16505 of 2017, CLMA No. 16506 of 2017 and CLMA No. 16497 of 2017 have been filed by the parties to indicate that they have buried their differences and have settled their disputes amicably. Joint compromise applications have also been filed by them. Respondent no. 3 Darshan Singh Dhillon is present in person, duly identified by his counsel Mr. Mohd Azim, Advocate. All the petitioners are also present in person, duly identified by their counsel Mr. Ahrar Baig, Advocate. Respondent no.3 submitted before this Court that he has no grievance left against the petitioners and he is not interested in prosecuting them, in as much as, the dispute has been settled amicably between the parties. In other words, respondent no. 3 has exonerated the present petitioners.

3. The question arises for consideration is– whether the respondent no. 3/ person aggrieved should be permitted to compound the offence under Section 420 of IPC against the petitioners or not?

4. Section 420 IPC is compoundable offence with the permission of the court, as per the scheme of Section 320 Cr.P.C. The person cheated may move the court for such compounding. It may be compounded even before the Trial Court (Magistrate). Hon’ble Supreme Court has also permitted compounding of such cases in the decisions of B.S. Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana and another, (2003) 4 SCC 675 and Nikhil Merchant vs. CBI and another, (2008) 9 SCC 650.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners drew the attention of this Court towards the ruling of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another, (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 160, in which Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as below:

“The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised 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 or 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 statutes 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 proceeding 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. While deciding whether to exercise its inherent powers or not, timing 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 it’s 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.

7. The obvious reply to the question posed in para 3 is in the affirmative in view of the catena of decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court.

8. In view of the above, the FIR dated 06.08.2017 registered as Case Crime No. 87 of 2017, under Section 420 lodged by respondent No. 3, at Police Station Kelakhera, District Udham Singh Nagar, and the criminal proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed qua writ petitioners.

9. All the Criminal Writ Petitions are thus disposed of in terms of compromise arrived at between the parties.

Pankaj/-

(U.C. Dhyani, J.)

Vacation Judge

09.02.2018