Unknown vs Suresh Oli And Others" As Well As ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 1502 UK

                     Office Notes,
                    reports, orders
SL.                 or proceedings
         Date                                               COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No                 or directions and
                   Registrar's order
                    with Signatures
      26.05.2023                       C-482 No. 1023 of 2023
                                       Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J.

1. Mr. Deep Prakash Bhatt, learned counsel for the applicants.

2. Mr. Atul Kumar Shah, learned Deputy Advocate General and Ms. Mamta Joshi, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand / respondent No. 1.

3. Mr. Amit Kapri, learned counsel for respondent No. 2.

4. The present Application, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., has been filed by the three applicants, against whom an FIR was lodged by respondent No. 2.

5. This Compounding Application (IA No. 1 of 2023) has been filed for quashing of the Charge-Sheet No. 45/2023 dated 13.02.2023, under Sections 323, 504, 506 of IPC and under Section 3(1) (r) (s) & 3(2)(va) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 as well as Summoning Order dated 20.04.2023 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar in Special Session Trial No. 455/2023 tilted as "State vs. Suresh Oli and others" as well as the entire proceedings of Special Session Trial No. 455 / 2023.

6. All the three applicants as well as the complainant are present before this Court, and their respective counsel have identified their identity on the basis of their Adhar Cards, which are the part of record.

7. No doubt, Section 320 of the Code articulates public policy with regard to the compounding of offences. It catalogues the offences punishable under IPC which may be compounded by the parties without permission of the Court and the composition of certain offences with the permission of the court. The offences punishable under the special statutes are not covered by Section 320.

8. The present petition is preferred under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for compounding of the offences. However, offences punishable under Section 3(1)(r)(s) & 3(2)(va) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 are the offences punishable under the special status and are not covered by Section 320 of Cr.P.C., and as such, if I take into consideration Section 320 of Cr.P.C., the offence is not compoundable, since it is covered under the special statute.

9. It is settled principle of law that the High Court has inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in quashing criminal proceedings against an offender, who has settled his dispute(s) with the victim. Section 482 of the Code, as its very language suggests, saves the inherent power of the High Court which it has by virtue of it being a superior court to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It begins with the words, 'nothing in this Code' which means that the provision is an overriding provision. These words leave no manner of doubt that none of the provisions of the Code limits or restricts the inherent power. The guideline for exercise of such power is provided in Section 482 itself i.e., to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Section 482 confers no new powers on High Court; it merely safeguards existing inherent powers possessed by High Court necessary to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or to secure the ends of justice. It is equally well settled that the power is not to be resorted to if there is specific provision in the Code for the redress of the grievance of an aggrieved party. It should be exercised very sparingly and it should not be exercised as against the express bar of law engrafted in any other provision of the Code.

10. The exercise of inherent power by the High Court would entirely depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.

11. 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.

12. The Hon'ble Apex Court summarised its observations in Paragraph-61 in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another (2012) 10 SCC 303, which reads as under:-

" 61. 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."

13. The aforesaid judgment was further followed in the case of Dimpey Gujral and others vs. Union Territory, through Administrator, UT, Chandigarh and others (2013) 11 497, and Paragarph-61 of the judgment in the case of Gian Singh (supra) was also taken into consideration by the Hon'ble Apex Court in this case. The Hon'ble Apex Court comes to the conclusion in this case that this is a case where the continuation of criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law because the alleged offences are not heinous offences showing extreme depravity nor are they against the society, and the offences are of personal nature, and quashed the entire proceedings.

14. The Hon'ble Apex Court further in the case of Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, 2014 (6) SCC 466, also followed the judgment in the case of Gian Singh (supra).

15. Mr. Atul Kumar Shah, learned Deputy Advocate General and Ms. Mamta Joshi, learned Brief Holder, who appear for the State, state that they have no objection, if the Compounding Application is allowed.

16. After considering the legal position, now I proceed to discuss the case at hands.

17. So far as the facts of the present case are concerned, the First Information Report was lodged by respondent No, 2, who is aged about 26 years, on 16.01.2023 against the applicants, who are also below 29 years, wherein the allegations pertain to the offences cognizable under Sections 323, 504, & 506 IPC read with Section 3(1) (r) (s) & 3(2)(va) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. I have also gone through the allegations and have interacted with the complainant and all the applicants, who are present in the Court. It appears that the applicants and the complainant are close friends and there was no such intention as alleged in the FIR. After interaction with the complainant and the applicants, it appears that all are having no grievance with each other, and they have amicably settled their disputes without any compulsion and pressure, and the complainant-respondent No. 2 submits that he does not want to pursue this case, since all the applicants are his close friends.

18. Keeping in view the entire material, including the FIR and the Charge-Sheet, this Court thinks it proper that this Compounding Application be allowed in the light of the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh (supra). Since the complainant wishes to compound the offences and there is no objection on behalf of the State, hence, I allow the Compounding Application.

19. After taking all the factors into consideration of the present case, I am of the opinion that the compromise and the amicable settlement, as entered into between the parties, is accepted.

20. Consequently, the Charge-Sheet No. 45/2023 dated 13.02.2023, under Sections 323, 504, 506 of IPC and under Section 3(1) (r) (s) & 3(2)(va) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 as well as Summoning Order dated 20.04.2023 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar in Special Session Trial No. 455/2023 tilted as "State vs. Suresh Oli and others" are set aside and the entire proceedings of Special Session Trial No. 455 / 2023 are hereby quashed.

21. Accordingly, the present C482 petition also stands disposed of.

(Rakesh Thapliyal, J)

26.05.2023

Rathour