Gurpal Singh & Anr vs Ut Of J&K & Anr
2023 Latest Caselaw 1047 j&K

Sr.No. 8

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU

CRM(M) No. 670/2022
CriIM No. 1401/ 2022

Reserved on =: 28.04.2023
Pronounced on: 22.05.2023

Gurpal Singh & Anr ... Petitioner(s)

Through :- Mr. Vishal Goel, Advocate
V/s

UT of J&K & Anr. .... Respondent(s)

Dev Si

Ai gh: 'Dy. AG

Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred as to the "Code'), the petitioners

by instant petition seek quashment of the Challan/Charge-sheet titled State Vs Gurpal Singh along with all proceedings therein, pending before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu, arising out of FIR No. 160/2006 registered against the petitioner No.1 at the instant of petitioner No.2 in Police Station, Satwari, Jammu for the commission of

offences punishable under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 201 RPC.

2. It is averred, that petitioners are close relatives as petitioner No.1 is the real brother in law of petitioner No.2, the petitioners along with their family members had created a trust under the name and style of Peer Panchal Education Trust, which trust had established B.Ed College by the name of Sher-e-Kashmir College of Education and after establishment of the said B.Ed College, certain disputes arose between the petitioners and their family , which disputes resulted into filing of civil suits qua the issues with respect to the trust and the B.Ed College in civil court at Jammu, both were pending in the Court of Learned City Judge, Jammu; that apart from the civil litigation above detailed, the petitioner No.2

herein filed a complaint against petitioner No.1 at Police Station Satwari,

Jammu alleging creation of forged documents on the letter head of the Trust, viz the resignation of the petitioner No.2 from peer Panchal Education Trust, which trust had been managing the B.Ed College; that the said complaint of petitioner No.2 resulted into a registration of impugned FIR against petitioner No.1, the allegations against petitioner No.1 were of creating forged documents of petitioner No.2 and his wife Late Manjit Kour, on some resolution of the trust thereby managing the illegal resignation of petitioner No.2 and his wife from the trust i.e Peer Panchal Education Trust. It is averred, that the investigation of the Fir resulted into a prima facie case made out against petitioner No.1, as a result, a charge sheet pursuant to the registration impugned FIR came to be instituted against petitioner No.1 in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu, the same is pending disposal; that during the pendency of the case, the petitioners have settled their differences and have willingly/mutually agreed upon that the above said criminal challan pending before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge shall be brought to an end as the petitioner No.2 who is the complainant therein, in view of the close relation with the petitioner No.2 now does not wish to prosecute/press his complaint against petitioner No.1 any further.

Pursuant to the order dated 28.04.2023, the Registrar Judicial has recorded the statements of the parties, the same are placed on record which read as under: -

Statement of Gurpal Singh (Petitioner No.1): Age: 62 years: S/o Late S. Hakim Singh; R/o Ajit Nagar, Gadigarh, Jammu on oath today i.e 28.04.2023;

"Stated, that I have amicably resolved all disputes and issues with Charanjit Singh (petitioner No.2). A compromise deed dated 25.08.2022, duly attested and registered on 25.08.2022 by Notary Public, Jammu, has also been executed between us in this regard and photocopy of the same is placed on the record of the file. In view of our amicable settlement, I pray before the Hon'ble Court to quash FIR No. 160/2006 dated 02.10.2006 registered at Police Station, Satwari, Jammu for commission of offences u/s 420, 467, 468, 471, 201 RPC and consequent chargesheet/challan arising out of the said FIR, titled 'State vs Gurpal Singh'pending before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu."

Statement of Charanjyit Singh Raina (petitioner No.2): age 62 years S/o Late S Daya Singh Raina; R/O 171, Behind Warehouse, Jammu, on oath today 1.e 28.04.2023:

4.

"Stated, that I have amicably resolved all disputes and issues with Gurpal Singh (petitioner No.1). A compromise deed dated 25.08.2022, duly attested and registered on 25.08.2022 by Notary Public, Jammu, has also been executed between us in this regard and photocopy of the same is placed on the record of the file. Further, | have no grievance against petitioner No.1 and I do not want to pursue the FIR. In view of our amicable settlement, | have no objection in case Hon'ble Court quashes FIR No. 160/2006 dated 02.10.2006 registered at Police Station, Satwari, Jammu for commission of offences u/s 420, 467, 468, 471, 201 RPC and consequent chargesheet/challan arising out of the said FIR, titled "State vs Gurpal Singh'pending before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu."

A question, in view of the aforesaid factual position, has arisen as to whether this Court has power to quash the proceedings, particularly when some of the offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioners, are non-compoundable in nature.

In a case titled, "Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another" reported in 2012 (10) SCC 303", while considering the aspect of whether the High Court has power to quash the proceedings when some of the offences alleged to have been committed are non-compoundable in nature, the Apex Court has observed as follows:

"57. 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.LR 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 Pre (ON « Actor 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 ts 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".

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a case titled "Kapil Gupta vs State of NCT of Delhi &Anr.", decided _on 10.08.2022 in Criminal Appeal No.

1217 of 2022 and SLP(Crl.) No. 5806 of 2022, while quashing FIR in rape

case u/ss 376 IPC and. observing that as compromise has occurred between the parties, charges are yet to be framed, and if trial is permitted to go, it will end in nothing else than an acquittal, in paras 12, 13, 14, 15, 16,17 & 18 held as under:-

12. No doubt that the learned ASG is right in relying on various judgments of this Court which reiterate the legal position that in heinous and serious offences like murder or rape, the Court should not quash the proceedings. It will be relevant to refer to paragraph 29.5 to 29.7 of the judgment of this Court in the case of Narender Singh versus State of Punjab, which read thus:

"29.5 While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases.

29.6 Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be generally treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision.

It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to proving the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc. Medical report in respect of injuries suffered by the victim can generally be the guiding factor.

On the basis of this prima facie analysis, the High Court can examine as to whether there is a strong possibility of conviction or the chances of conviction are remote and bleak. In the former case it can refuse to accept the settlement and quash the criminal proceedings whereas in the latter case it would be permissible for the High Court to accept the plea compounding the offence based on complete settlement between the parties. At this stage, the Court can also be swayed by the fact that the settkement between the parties is going to result in harmony between them which may improve their future relationship.

29.7 While deciding whether to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code or not, timings of settlement play a 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 be liberal in accepting the setthement to quash the criminal proceedings/investigation. It is because of the reason that at this stage the investigation is still on and even the chargesheet has not been filed. Likewise, those cases where the charge is framed but the evidence is yet to start or the evidence is still at infancy stage, the High Court can show benevolence in exercising its powers favourably, but after prima _ facie assessment of the circumstances/material mentioned above.

On the other hand, where the prosecution evidence is almost complete or after the conclusion of the evidence the matter is at the stage of argument, normally the High Court should refrain from exercising its power

under Section 482 of the Code, as in such cases the trial court would be in a position to decide the case finally on merits and to come a conclusion as to whether the offence under Section 307 IPC is committed or not. Similarly, in those cases where the conviction is already recorded by the trial court and the matter is at the appellate stage before the High Court, mere compromise between the parties would not be a ground to accept the same resulting in acquittal of the offender who has already been convicted by the trial court. Here charge is proved under Section 307 IPC and conviction is already recorded of a heinous crime and, therefore, there is no question of sparing a convict found guilty of such a crime."

13. It can thus be seen that this Court has clearly held that though the Court should be slow in quashing the proceedings wherein heinous and serious offences are involved, the High Court is not foreclosed from examining as to whether there exists material for incorporation of such an offence or as to whether there is sufficient evidence which if proved would lead to proving the charge for the offence charged with. The Court has also to take into consideration as to whether the settlement between the parties is going to result into harmony between them which may improve their mutual relationship.

14. The Court has further held that it is also relevant to consider as to what is stage of the proceedings. It has been observed that if an application is made at a belated stage wherein the evidence has been led and the matter is at the stage of arguments or judgment, the Court should be slow to exercise the power to quash the proceedings. However, if such an application is made at an initial stage before commencement of trial, the said factor will weigh with the court in exercising its power.

15. The facts and circumstances as stated hereinabove are peculiar in the present case. Respondent No.2 is a young lady of 23 years. She feels that gong through trial is one case, where she is a complainant and in the other case, wherein she is the accused would robe the prime of her youth. She feels that if she is made to face the trial rather than getting any relief, she would be faced with agony of undergoing the trial.

16. In both the cases, though the charge sheets have been filed, the charges are yet to be framed and as such, the trial has not yet commenced. It is further to be noted that since the respondent No.2 herself is not supporting the prosecution case, even if the criminal

trial is permitted to go ahead, it will end in nothing else than an acquittal. If the request of the parties is denied, it will be amounting to only adding one more criminal case to the already overburdened criminal courts.

17. In that view of the matte, we find that though in a heinous or serious crime like, rape, the Court should not normally exercise the powers of quashing the proceedings, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case and in order to give succor to respondent No.2 so that she is saved from further agony of facing two criminal trials, one as a victim and one as an accused, we find that this is a fit case wherein the extraordinary powers of this Court be exercised to quash the criminal proceedings.

18. In that view of the matter, the appeal is allowed and proceedings in the criminal cases arising out of following FIRs are quashed and set aside: 1. FIR No.569/2020 registered at Police Station, Mehrauli, New Delhi (Rape) 2. FIR No.824/2020, registered at Police Station, Mehrauli, New Delhi (Extortion).

Ratio of the judgment of Kapil Gupta's case (supra) makes the legal proposition abundantly clear, that the High Court has inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justice subject to the parameters that, if the parties have settled their disputes amicably by a compromise even in a heinous and serious offence of rape, if the application/petition is made at an earliest stage even though charge sheet has been filed but charges are yet to be framed and trial has not commenced, and even if the criminal trial is permitted to go ahead it will end in nothing else than an acquittal. Ratio of the judgment (supra) squarely applies to the facts of the case in hand. Bare perusal of the statements of petitioners placed on record demonstrate that the parties have entered into a compromise whereby they have settled their disputes/issues, so there would be no chance of conviction of accused in near future in case trial is held and concluded.

In view of the above, this petition stands allowed. Consequently, Challan/Charge-sheet titled 'State Vs Gurpal Singh' along with all proceedings therein, pending before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu, arising out of FIR No. 160/2006 registered

against the petitioner No.1 in Police Station, Satwari, Jammu for the

commission of offences punishable under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 201 RPC as well as the impugned FIR, in view of compromise arrived at between the parties, is quashed.

9. Disposed of accordingly along with all connected CM(s), if any.

10. Copy of this order be sent to the Court of Learned Additional Sessions

Judge, Jammu, for compliance.

(Mohan Lal) Judge Jammu:

22.05.2023 Vijay

Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No