C482/1459/2013 of Ashish Kumar Srivastava AND ANOTHER Vs State Of Uttarakhand on 28 December 2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL-Criminal Misc. Application (C482) No. 1459 of 2013

Ashish Kumar Srivastava & another ……. Applicants

versus

State of Uttarakhand

……. Respondent

Mr. B.S. Thind, Advocate for applicant no. 1. Mr. Lalit Sharma, Advocate for applicant no. 2. Mr. M.A. Khan, AGA with Mr. J.S. Panwar, Brief Holder for the respondent State.

U.C. Dhyani, J.(Oral)

Applicant no. 2, by means of present application / petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeks to quash the proceedings of criminal case no. 2980 of 2012, State vs Gurbachan Singh, under Sections 504, 506, 353 of IPC and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar.

2) An FIR was lodged by applicant no. 1 against applicant no. 2 on 02.06.2012, in Reporting Out-post SIDCUL, under Sections 504, 506, 353 of IPC. After the investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against the accused (applicant no. 2 herein) for the selfsame offences, including the one under Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act.

3) Now the informant and the accused have filed joint criminal misc. application (C-482) No. 1459 of 2013 for quashing the proceedings of criminal case no.

2980 of 2012, State vs Gurbachan Singh, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rudrapur.

4) Both the applicants are present in person before this Court duly identified by their counsel. Applicant no. 1 stated that he is not keen to prosecute applicant no. 2. A compromise, entered into between the parties, is filed as Annexure –3 to the present petition. Both the applicants are signatories to the compromise, which was verified before the Oath Commissioner. Both the applicants (informant as well as the accused) have also filed separate affidavits indicating therein that they have buried their differences amicably.

5) Offences punishable under Sections 504, 506 of IPC are compoundable offences within the scheme of Section 320 of Cr.P.C. Offences punishable under Section 353 of IPC and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act are non-compoundable offences. The question which is left for consideration of this Court is -whether the applicant no. 1 (complainant) should be permitted to compound such offences against the accused-applicant no. 2 or not?

6) Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another, (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 160, has observed that the 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. Relevant paragraph of Gian Singh’s case (supra) is reproduced here-in-under for ready reference:

“The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarized 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 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) Since complainant-applicant no. 1 has buried his differences amicably with the accused-applicant no. 2, therefore, the complainant-applicant no. 1 should be permitted to compound such offences against the accused-applicant no. 2 in the interest of society as well as in the interest of justice.

8) As a consequences thereof, the application under Section 482 is allowed. Proceedings of criminal case no. 2980 of 2012, State vs Gurbachan Singh, under Sections 504, 506, 353 of IPC and Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar are hereby quashed on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.

(U.C. Dhyani, J.)