Uttarakhand High Court
Sanjeev Sharma @ Sonu vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 13 December, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Compounding Application (I.A. No. 01 of 2022)
In
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 2191 of 2022
(Under Section 482 of Cr.P.C)
Sanjeev Sharma @ Sonu ....Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and another ....Respondents
Ms. Neetu Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.
Mr. T.C. Aggarwal, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand.
Mr. Vinod Chandra, learned counsel for respondent no. 2.
Dated: 13.12.2022
Hon'ble Manoj K. Tiwari, J. (Oral)
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This criminal misc. application has been filed
by the applicant for quashing the charge-sheet dated
27.08.2022; summoning order dated 27.08.2022 and
entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 810 of 2022
pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate / Ist
Additional Civil Judge, Roorkee, District Haridwar under
Sections 420, 406, I.P.C.
3. A compounding application, jointly signed by
counsel for the respondent no. 2 and counsel for the
applicant has been filed duly supported by affidavits of
father of the applicant; respondent no. 2 & victim.
4. Sanjay S/o Dharampal Singh (respondent no.
2) and Jambu Prasad, S/o Dharampal Singh, who
allegedly paid the amount, are present in Court, who
are identified by Mr. Vinod Chandra appearing for
respondent no. 2. Both of them have made a
statement that they have amicably settled the dispute
and now they did not want to pursue the case any
further. Father of the applicant, Sri Sadhu Ram is also
present in Court who also submits that dispute is now
resolved.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits
that applicant is in jail. He further submits that the
charge-sheet has been filed under Section 420 & 406
IPC, and both the offences are compoundable.
6. Learned Deputy Advocate General also does
not dispute said submission made on behalf of the
applicant.
7. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian
Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another (supra), has
considered the question with regard to the inherent
power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in
quashing the criminal proceedings against the offender,
who has settled his dispute with the victim of the crime
in a case, where crime is not compoundable under
Section 320 Cr.P.C. Paragraph Nos.57 and 58 of the
said judgment are extracted below:-
"57. Quashing of offence or criminal proceedings on
the ground of settlement between an offender and
victim is not the same thing as compounding of
offence. They are different and not interchangeable.
Strictly speaking, the power of compounding of
offences given to a court under Section 320 is
materially different from the quashing of criminal
proceedings by the High Court in exercise of its
inherent jurisdiction. In compounding of offences,
power of a criminal court is circumscribed by the
provisions contained in Section 320 and the court is
guided solely and squarely thereby while, on the
other hand, the formation of opinion by the High
Court for quashing a criminal offence or criminal
proceeding or criminal complaint is guided by the
material on record as to whether the ends of justice
would justify such exercise of power although the
ultimate consequence may be acquittal or dismissal
of indictment.
58. Where the High Court quashes a criminal
proceeding having regard to the fact that dispute
between the offender and victim has been settled
although offences are not compoundable, it does so
as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings
will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case
demands that the dispute between the parties is put
to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends
of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. No
doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful effect on
the public and consist in wrong doing that seriously
endangers and threatens well-being of society and it
is not safe to leave the crime- doer only because he
and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or
that the victim has been paid compensation, yet
certain crimes have been made compoundable in
law, with or without permission of the Court. In
respect of serious offences like murder, rape,
dacoity, etc; or other offences of mental depravity
under IPC or offences of moral turpitude under
special statutes, like Prevention of Corruption Act or
the offences committed by public servants while
working in that capacity, the settlement between
offender and victim can have no legal sanction at all.
However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and
predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of
civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership
or such like transactions or the offences arising out
of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or
the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to
victim and the offender and victim have settled all
disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the
fact that such offences have not been made
compoundable, the High Court may within the
framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal
proceeding or criminal complaint or F.I.R if it is
satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is
hardly any likelihood of offender being convicted and
by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice
shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be
defeated. The above list is illustrative and not
exhaustive. Each case will depend on its own facts
and no hard and fast category can be prescribed."
8. The offences involved in this case are of a
personal nature and are not offences against the
society. Moreover, they are not heinous offences
showing extreme depravity.
9. Having regard to the fact that the parties
have entered into a settlement and in the opinion of
this Court, continuation of criminal proceedings against
the applicant will be an exercise in futility, therefore, to
prevent abuse of process of law, this Court can exercise
its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in view
of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and
Another (supra).
10. In view of the settlement arrived between
the complainant and the applicant, the possibility of
conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the
criminal case would put the accused to great
oppression and prejudice, which would tantamount to
abuse of process of law.
11. Therefore, to secure the ends of justice, this
criminal miscellaneous application under Section 482
Cr.P.C. is allowed. Entire proceedings of Criminal Case
No. 810 of 2022 pending in the Court of learned
Judicial Magistrate / Ist Additional Civil Judge, Roorkee,
District Haridwar are hereby quashed. Liberty is
granted to the applicant, who is in jail, to approach the
Magistrate concerned for obtaining the order for his
release.
12. Compounding application is, accordingly,
disposed of.
(Manoj K. Tiwari, J)
13.12.2022
Ravi
