C482/1039/2010 of JAGTAR SINGH AND ANR Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ANR on 30 December 2013

1. The applicants, by means of present petition moved under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seek to quash the charge-sheet dated 28.09.2010 as well as summoning order dated 18.10.2010 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Case No. 119 of 2010, captioned as State vs. Jagtar Singh and others, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 323, 504, 506 and 427 of Indian Penal Code, pending before the said court. Section 482 Cr.P.C., seek to quash the charge-sheet dated 28.09.2010 as well as summoning order dated 18.10.2010 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Case No. 119 of 2010, captioned as State vs. Jagtar Singh and others, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 323, 504, 506 and 427 of Indian Penal Code, pending before the said court.

2. Informant (respondent no. 2) lodged a first information report against three named accused, including the applicants, on 06.07.2010 at PS Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 392 and 406 IPC. After the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the applicants under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, report against three named accused, including the applicants, on 06.07.2010 at PS Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 392 and 406 IPC. After the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the applicants under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 323, 504, 506 and 427 IPC. Cognizance was taken on the same. Aggrieved against the same, present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was filed.

3. A Miscellaneous Application being CRMA No. 2001 of 2013 is filed along with an affidavit of applicant no. 1 to indicate that the parties have settled their disputes amicably outside the Court. No grievance is, therefore, left to the complainant (respondent no. 2 herein) against the applicants. It is further stated in the affidavit that the civil suit between the parties was also decided on the basis of compromise between the parties. A copy of the settlement- deed is also enclosed as annexure no. 1 to the misc. application No. 2001 of 2013. The complainant /respondent no. 2 herein is signatory to the said settlement-deed. 2013 is filed along with an affidavit of applicant no. 1 to indicate that the parties have settled their disputes amicably outside the Court. No grievance is, therefore, left to the complainant (respondent no. 2 herein) against the applicants. It is further stated in the affidavit that the civil suit between the parties was also decided on the basis of compromise between the parties. A copy of the settlement- deed is also enclosed as annexure no. 1 to the misc. application No. 2001 of 2013. The complainant /respondent no. 2 herein is signatory to the said settlement-deed.

4. The applicants were charge-sheeted for the offences under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 323, 504, 506 and 427 of IPC. Whereas offences under Sections 323, 504, 506, 406, 427 and 420 are compoundable offences within the scheme of Section 320 Cr.P.C., the other offences complained of against the applicants are not. The question is– whether the informant should be permitted to compound the offences against the applicants under other such Sections or not? Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 323, 504, 506 and 427 of IPC. Whereas offences under Sections 323, 504, 506, 406, 427 and 420 are compoundable offences within the scheme of Section 320 Cr.P.C., the other offences complained of against the applicants are not. The question is– whether the informant should be permitted to compound the offences against the applicants under other such Sections or not?

5. The Apex Court has dealt with the consequence of a 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: 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 a bar to the exercise becomes necessary, Section 320 would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing. It is, however, a different matter depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case whether to exercise or not such a power.”

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

6. 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.

7. Learned counsel for the applicants also 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: 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 summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a 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.”

8. It will be a futile exercise if proceeding of the criminal case against the applicants are kept pending when the parties have settled their disputes amicably. against the applicants are kept pending when the parties have settled their disputes amicably.

9. As a consequence thereof, application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed. The charge-sheet dated 28.09.2010 as well as summoning order dated 18.10.2010 passed by Cr.P.C. is allowed. The charge-sheet dated 28.09.2010 as well as summoning order dated 18.10.2010 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Case No. 119 of 2010, captioned as State vs. Jagtar Singh and others, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 323, 504, 506 and 427 of Indian Penal Code are hereby set aside on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties qua applicants.

(U.C. Dhyani, J.)

Dated: 30.12.2013Kaushal