Uttarakhand High Court
Atul Sharma vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 12 April, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Application (C-482) No. 739 of 2021
Atul Sharma .....Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and another ......Respondents
Mr. Kurban Ali, Advocate for the applicant.
Mr. Pramod Tiwari, learned Brief Holder for the State.
Ms. Lubhna Jahan, learned counsel for respondent no. 2.
Dated: 12th April, 2021
Hon'ble N.S. Dhanik, J. (Oral)
By means of this application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C., applicant has prayed for
quashing the impugned charge-sheet and the
entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1809 of
2019, "State v. Atul Sharma", under Sections
323, 498A, 506 IPC and Section 3 (1)(X) SC/ST
Act, pending in the Court of learned Sessions
Judge, Nainital.
2. In the joint compounding application,
duly supported by the affidavits of the applicant
and respondent no. 2, it has been stated that
parties have amicably settled their dispute and
the respondent no. 2 does not want to prosecute
the accused applicant. Accused applicant Atul
Sharma (applicant) and Smt. Neha Devi
(respondent no. 2/complainant), duly identified
by their respective Counsel are present in the
Court today. They admitted that they have
entered into compromise.
3. Learned State Counsel opposed the
compounding application on the ground that
Section 498-A IPC and Section 3(1)(X) of the
SC/ST Act are non-compoundable.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant drew
the attention of this Court towards the ruling of
Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & 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 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."
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has
placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex
Court in Gorige Pentaiah vs. State of Andhra
Pradesh & others: (2008) 12 SCC 531 to argue
jointly that no prima facie case under Section 3
(1)(X) SC/ST Act is made out against the
applicant. It will be useful to reproduce para 6 of
the Gorige Pentaiah's case herein below for
convenience:
"6. In the instant case, the allegation of respondent
no.3 in the entire complaint is that on 27.05.2004, the
appellant abused them with the name of their caste.
According to the basic ingredients of Section 3(1(x) of
the Act, the complainant ought to have alleged that the
appellant-accused was not a member of the Scheduled
Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and he (respondent no.3)
was intentionally insulted or intimidated by the
accused with intent to humiliate in a place within public
view. In the entire complaint, nowhere it is mentioned
that he appellant-accused was not a member of the
Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled tribe and he
intentionally insulted or intimidated with intent to
humiliate respondent no.3 in a place within public view.
When the basic ingredients of the offence are missing in
the complaint, then permitting such a complaint to
continue and to compel the appellant to face the
rigmarole of the criminal trial would be totally
unjustified leading to abuse of process of law."
6. In view of the above, compounding of
the offences alleged against the applicant is
allowed. As a consequence of the same, impugned
summoning order and also the entire proceedings
of Criminal Case No. 1809 of 2019, "State v. Atul
Sharma", under Sections 323, 498A, 506 IPC and
Section 3 (1)(X) SC/ST Act, pending in the Court
of learned Sessions Judge, Nainital are hereby
quashed qua the applicant only.
7. Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
is thus disposed of in terms of compromise
arrived at between the parties.
(N.S. Dhanik, J.)
12.04.2021
AK
