C482/247/2018 of Balvinderjeet Singh Vs State Of Uttarakhand AND ANOTHER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND ATNAINITAL

Criminal Misc. Application No. 247 of 2018

(Under Section 482 Cr.P.C.)

.....….…… Applicant

Balvinderjeet Singh

versus

State of Uttarkhand & another

………. Respondents

Mr. Aditya Singh, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. J.S. Virk, A.G.A. for the State/ respondent no. 1. Mr. Pragyanand Tiwari, Advocate for respondent no. 2.

U.C. Dhyani, J. (Oral)

It is the Submission of learned counsel that Praveen Bhardwaj reporter which is person duly identified by his advocate. Praveen Bhardwaj has stated that all disputes has been settled amicably and NBW has been identified among and entered as Annexure 4. He has also submitted that appellant has settled all disputes amicably and he is not prosecuting the applicant. Theapplicants, by means of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seek to quash/set-aside the impugned charge sheet dated 22.07.2017 and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 5414 of 2017 under Sections 420,467, 468, 471 & 120-B I.P.C., P.S. Premnagar, District Dehradun pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun.

2. compounding application being CRMA No. 224 of 2018 is filed by the parties to indicate that they have buried their differences and have settled their dispute amicably. Mr. Praveen Bhardwaj (complainant/victim/) is present in person, duly identified by his counsel Mr. Pragyananad Tiwari, Advocate. Mr. Balvinderjeet Singh (applicant) is also present in person, duly identified by his counsel Mr. Aditya Singh, Advocate. Complainant-Praveen Bhardwaj submitted before this Court that he has no grievance left against the petitioner and he is no more interested in prosecuting the petitioner, inasmuch as, the dispute has been settled amicably between the parties with the intervention of some elderly

persons of the society. In other words, respondent no. 2 (the person aggrieved) has exonerated the present petitioners

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. The Apex Court has dealt has dealt with the consequence of compromise in regard to non-compoundable offences in the case of B.S. Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana and another, (2003) 4 SCC 675 and has held as below:

“If for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necessary, Section 320 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.”

Thus, the High Court in exercise of its inherent power can quash criminal proccedings or FIR or complaint and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 of the Code.

5. The principles of law propounded in B.S. Joshi’s case (supra) has been applied with approval in the case of Nikhil Merchant v. CBI and another, (2008) 9 SCC 650.

6. Learned counsel for the applicants drew the attention of this Court towards the ruling of Gian Singh v. 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 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 plentitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accordance with the guidelines 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 its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.”

7. In view of the above, compounding of the offences alleged against the applicant is allowed. As consequence of the same, charge sheet dated 22.07.2017 and proceedings of Criminal Case No. 5414 of 2017 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B of I.P.C., P.S. Premnagar, District Dehradun pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun are hereby quashed.

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

Pankaj/

(U. C. Dhyani, J.)

Vacation Judge

09.02.2018