Rashid Ali & Ors. .. Petitioners vs State Of Uttarakhand & Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 3179 UK

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT

                              NAINITAL

          Criminal Writ Petition No. 1322 of 2021

                                  With

         Compounding Application No. 1 of 2021

Rashid Ali & Ors.                                   .. Petitioners

                                Versus

State of Uttarakhand & Anr.                             ..Respondents
Mr. S.K. Shandilya, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Mr. G.S Sandhu, learned G.A. with Mr. Siddhartha Bisht, learned Brief
Holder for the State.
Mr. Sachin Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the complainant.

Hon'ble R.C. Khulbe, J.

By means of present writ petition, moved under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are praying for quashing of the FIR dated 23.07.2021, registered as FIR No. 0405 of 2021, under Sections 457, 323 and 307 IPC registered at P.S. Kotwali Jwalapur District Haridwar.

2. The above numbered compromise application has been filed on behalf of the parties with a prayer that the parties have buried their differences and have settled their dispute amicably. The compromise is on the record, supported by an affidavit. Parties are present in the Court today through video conferencing, duly verified by their respective counsel. It is stated by the respondent no. 3-Sahrukh, respondent no. 4 Soyeb and respondent no.5 Saheen that they do not want to prosecute the

petitioner and the dispute has been amicably settled between them.

3. It may be noted here that the offences punishable under Section 323 IPC is compoundable offences with the permission of the Court as provided under the scheme of Section 320 Cr.P.C., whereas Sections 457 and 307 IPC are non compoundable offence.

4. Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in a catena of judgments that non-compoundable offences can be compounded on the basis of settlements between private parties and on a compromise between the offender and the victim, and that Section 320 of Cr.P.C. would not be a bar for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, where the dispute is purely personal in nature and does not cause any harm to the society. A reference may be made to Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 160 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:-

"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."

5. 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).

6. Having regard to the facts of the present case, while taking into account the settlement arrived at between the parties and also considering the affidavits filed before this Court by the parties as well as in view of well-settled proposition of law, the application seeking permission to compound the offences is allowed.

7. In view of the above, compromise application is allowed. As a consequence of the same, FIR dated 23.07.2021, registered as FIR No. 0405 of 2021, under Sections 457, 323 and 307 IPC registered at P.S. Kotwali Jwalapur District Haridwar is hereby quashed against the petitioners on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.

8. The present criminal writ petition is thus disposed of.

(R. C. Khulbe, J.) 18.08.2021 Parul