Delhi High Court
Jitendra Singh Bisht vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others on 28 August, 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
NAINITAL
Criminal Writ Petition No. 946 of 2014
(Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India)
Jitendra Singh Bisht ................Petitioner
versus
State of Uttarakhand and others .......... Respondents
Mr. Navnish Negi, Advocate, present for the writ petitioner.
Mr. D.K.Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by
Mr. K.S. Rawal, Brief Holder, present for the State/respondent no.1.
U.C. Dhyani, J. (Oral)
1. The writ petitioner, by means of present criminal Writ
Petition, seeks to quash the impugned FIR dated
22.05.2014, registered as Case Crime No. 88 of 2014,
under Section 326 of IPC, at Police Station Kotdwara,
District Pauri Garhwal.
2. A first information report was lodged by respondent no.
2 against the petitioner for the offence punishable under
Section 326 of IPC. A compounding application being
CRMA No. 9541 of 2014 has been filed on behalf of
the parties, to indicate that they have buried their
differences and settled their disputes amicably. The
compounding application is supported by the affidavits
of petitioner and the son of respondent no. 2, Sumit
Negi (victim). Respondent no. 2 also appeared in this
Court on 21.08.2014 and stated that although she
lodged the first information report against the
petitioner, but she is not interested in prosecuting the
petitioner, in as much as, a compromise has taken place
between the parties with the intervention of a few
elderly persons of the community. She has also filed an
affidavit to show that her son sustained injuries when
he was playing a friendly cricket match.
3. The prayer for compounding was not considered by this
Court on 21.08.2014 in the absence of the victim/ or his
affidavit, although his mother came and stated that
neither she, nor her son, is interested in prosecuting the
petitioner. Now an affidavit has been filed by the victim
indicating therein that he sustained injuries while
playing a friendly cricket match.
4. Offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC is a non-
compoundable offence within the Scheme of Section
320 of CR.P.C. The question which arises for
consideration of this Court is- whether the petitioner
should be permitted to compound the offence
complained of against the petitioner or not?
5. Perused the contents of the First information report.
Learned counsel for the petitioner 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 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."
6. The instant case is squarely covered by the above ruling
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The obvious reply to the
question posed above is in the affirmative in view of the
ruling of Hon'ble Apex Court in Gian Singh's case
(supra). Hon'ble Apex Court also permitted
compounding of offence punishable under Section 307
IPC in the case of Dimpy Gujral vs. Union Territory
though Administrator U.T. Chandigarh and others,
[2013 (123) AIC 119 (S.C.)].
7. A reference may also be had to the decision of
Narendra Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and
another, reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 in this context.
8. In view of the above, the impugned FIR dated
22.05.2014, registered as Case Crime No. 88 of 2014,
under Section 326 of IPC, at Police Station Kotdwara
Garhwal, District Pauri Garhwal and the criminal
proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed
qua the writ petitioner.
9. Criminal Writ Petition No. 946 of 2014 is thus disposed
of in terms of compromise entered into between the
parties.
(U.C. Dhyani, J.)
28.08.2014
Kaushal
