Back
2019 Supreme(UK) 423
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Manoj K. Tiwari, J.
Nipendra Sharma And Others - Appellant
Vs.
State Of Uttarakhand And Others - Respondent
Compounding Application No. 15255 of 2019; Miscellaneous Application No. 15256 of 2019; Criminal Writ Petition No. 2002 of 2019
Decided On : 14-11-2019
Abhishek Verma, Adv., Saurabh Kumar Pandey, Adv., Rajendra Singh Negi, Adv.
The court emphasized that the compromise between the parties should attract the immediate and prompt attention of the Court unless it is abhorrent to lawful composition of the society or would promote savagery.
Headnote:
F.I.R. Quashing - Compromise - Section 379 IPC, Section 411 IPC - [Section 379 IPC, Section 411 IPC] - The court allowed the writ petition seeking quashing of the F.I.R. dated 11.11.2019, under Section 379 IPC (during investigation Section 411 IPC has been added) as the dispute between the parties was private in nature and the parties had amicably settled the matter. The court relied on the broad guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs State of Punjab and Narinder Singh & others Vs State of Punjab & another to justify the quashing of the criminal proceedings. The court held that the possibility of the trial resulting in conviction of the accused was remote and bleak, and continuation of criminal proceedings would visit the accused with great oppression, prejudice, and injustice. The court emphasized that the compromise between the parties should attract the immediate and prompt attention of the Court unless it is abhorrent to lawful composition of the society or would promote savagery.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought quashing of the impugned F.I.R. dated 11.11.2019, being F.I.R./Case Crime No. 296 of 2019, under Section 379 IPC (during investigation Section 411 IPC has been added), registered at P.S. ITI Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, as the dispute between the parties had been amicably settled.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the writ petition and quashed the F.I.R. dated 11.11.2019, under Section 379 IPC (during investigation Section 411 IPC has been added) as the dispute between the parties was private in nature and the parties had amicably settled the matter.
Issues: Quashing of F.I.R. under Section 379 IPC and Section 411 IPC, Compounding of Offences
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the broad guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs State of Punjab and Narinder Singh & others Vs State of Punjab & another to justify the quashing of the criminal proceedings. The court held that the possibility of the trial resulting in conviction of the accused was remote and bleak, and continuation of criminal proceedings would visit the accused with great oppression, prejudice, and injustice.
Final Decision: The writ petition seeking quashing of the F.I.R. dated 11.11.2019, under Section 379 IPC (during investigation Section 411 IPC has been added) was allowed, and the F.I.R. was quashed along with all the proceedings emanating therefrom qua petitioners only. Liberty was granted to the persons in jail to approach the Magistrate concerned for obtaining the order for their release with regard to the aforesaid F.I.R.
JUDGMENT :
Manoj K. Tiwari, J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. By means of this writ petition, petitioners have sought quashing of impugned F.I.R. dated 11.11.2019, being F.I.R./Case Crime No. 296 of 2019, under Section 379 IPC (during investigation Section 411 IPC has been added), registered at P.S. ITI Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar.
3. A compounding application, jointly signed by counsel for the complainant (respondent No. 3) and counsel for the petitioners has been filed duly supported by affidavits of pairokar of petitioner no. 3 and respondent No. 3 (complainant).
4. Complainant as well as pairokar of petitioners are present in the Court today who are duly identified by their respective counsels. It is reported that petitioners are in jail in connection with F.I.R./Case Crime No. 296 of 2019, under Section 379 IPC (during investigation Section 411 IPC has been added).
5. Learned counsels for the parties submit that the dispute has been amicably settled between the parties and the parties have decided to burry the hatchet.
6. The complainant made a statement that in view of the compromise arrived at between him and the petitioners; he does not want to pursue the matter any further, therefore offences be compounded.
7. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and also considering the broad guidelines issued by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh & others Vs State of Punjab & another, (2014) 6 SCC 466, request of the petitioner deserves to be acceded to.
8. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh (Supra) has held in para 53, 54 and 57, as under:-
"53. 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. As has been repeatedly stated that Section 482 confers no new powers on the High Court; it merely safeguards existing inherent powers possessed by the 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.
54. In different situations, the inherent power may be exercised in different ways to achieve its ultimate objective. Formation of opinion by the High Court before it exercises inherent power under Section 482 on either of the twin objectives, (i) to prevent abuse of the process of any court, or (ii) to secure the ends of justice, is a sine qua non.
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 e
