Back
2016 Supreme(UK) 675
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
U.C. Dhyani, J.
Satnam Singh and others - Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others - Respondents
Criminal Writ Petition No. 1480, 1481 of 2016
Decided On : 08-11-2016
For the Petitioners:Mr. Balvinder Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. P.S. Saun, Dy. Advocate General, Mr. Harshpal Sekhon, Advocate.
The power of the High Court in quashing criminal proceedings and the timing of settlement play a crucial role in deciding whether to exercise inherent powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Headnote:
Compounding of Offences - Criminal Procedure Code - Sections 147, 148, 427, 452, 307, 323, 324, 504, 506, 498A, ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act - The court allowed the compounding applications and quashed the FIRs based on the compromise between the parties. The court referred to the power of the High Court in quashing criminal proceedings and the timing of settlement in deciding whether to exercise its inherent powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Fact of the Case:
The criminal writ petitions arose from the same incident involving cross FIRs. Compounding applications were filed by the parties indicating that they have settled their dispute amicably. The injured persons expressed their lack of interest in prosecuting the accused persons and sought permission to compound the alleged offences.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the compounding applications and quashed the impugned FIRs based on the compromise between the parties, as it would be a futile exercise to keep the criminal case pending when the parties have settled their disputes amicably.
Issues: The only question left for consideration was whether the complainant and other injured persons should be permitted to compound the offences alleged against the accused-petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi: The court referred to the power of the High Court in quashing criminal proceedings and the timing of settlement in deciding whether to exercise its inherent powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It also cited relevant case laws and emphasized the need to consider the nature and gravity of the crime, the impact on society, and the possibility of conviction in cases involving settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer.
Final Decision: Both the compounding applications were allowed, and as a consequence, the criminal writ petitions were also allowed. The impugned FIRs were quashed based on the compromise arrived at between the parties.
U.C. Dhyani, J.
Since the aforesaid criminal writ petitions have arisen out of the same incident, in which cross FIRs were lodged by the parties against each other, therefore, they are being decided together by this common judgment and order for the sake of brevity and convenience.
2. An FIR has been lodged against the accused-petitioners of criminal writ petition no. 1480 of 2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 427, 452, 307 IPC. Cross FIR has also been filed against the accused-petitioners of criminal writ petition no. 1481 of 2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 504, 506, 427, 147, 148, 307, 498A IPC and Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
3. Compounding application, being CLMA no. 11459 of 2016, has been filed by the parties in criminal writ petition no. 1480 of 2016 to indicate that they have buried their differences and have settled their dispute amicably. Joint compromise has been filed alongwith affidavits of Balwant Singh (petitioner no. 2) as well as of Harjeet Singh (one of the injured / complainant-respondent no. 3).
Similarly, Compounding application, being CLMA no. 11461 of 2016, has also been filed by the parties in criminal writ petition no. 1481 of 2016 to indicate that they have buried their differences and have settled their dispute amicably. Joint compromise has been filed alongwith affidavits of Harjeet Singh (petitioner no. 3) as well as of Tahal Singh (one of the injured / complainant- respondent no. 3).
4. Accused-petitioners of criminal writ petition no. 1480 of 2016 are present in person before the Court, duly identified by their counsel Mr. Balvinder Singh, Advocate. Injured-respondent no. 3 Harjeet Singh as well as injured persons namely, Devendra Singh, Ravindra Singh, Palvinder Sohi @ Pinder, Balvinder Singh, Kashmir Singh and Kuldeep Kaur are also present in person before the Court, duly identified by their counsel Mr. Harshpal Sekhon, Advocate.
Similarly, accused-petitioners of criminal writ petition no. 1481 of 2016 are also present in person before the Court, duly identified by their counsel Mr. Harshpal Sekhon, Advocate. Injured-respondent no. 3 Tahal Singh as well as injured persons namely, Balwant Singh, Satta Singh, Babu @ Jaswant Singh and Balvir Kaur are also present in person before the Court, duly identified by their counsel Mr. Balvinder Singh, Advocate.
5. The injured-respondent no. 3 in both the criminal writ petitions stated that they as well as other injured persons are no more interested in prosecuting the accused persons (petitioners of both writ petitions), in as much as the dispute between the parties has been resolved amicably. They further stated that they may be permitted to compound the offences alleged against the accused persons. The statements given by both the injured-respondent no. 3 in the open Court has been affirmed on behalf of the accused persons.
6. The major offences which are non-compoundable are Sections 147, 148, 452, 307 in WPCRL no. 1480 of 2016. In the same way, major offences which are non-compoundable are Sections 307, 498A IPC and Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act in WPCRL no. 1481 of 2016.
7. The only question which is left for consideration of this Court is whether the complainant-respondent no. 3 (in both the writ petitions) as well as other injured persons should be permitted to compound such offences alleged against the accused-petitioners or not?
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners (in both the writ petitions) drew attention of this Court towards a decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Dimpy Gujral vs Union Territory through Administrator U.T. Chandigarh and others, [2013 (123) AIC 119 (S.C.)] and Narendra Singh and others vs State of Punjab and another, (2014) 6 SCC 466, where the said Court has permitted compounding of such type of offences, which are otherwise non-compoundable, within the scheme of Section 320 of Cr.P.C.
9. It will also be useful to reproduce the law lai
