Back
2019 Supreme(UK) 359
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Manoj K. Tiwari, J.
Puja – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others – Respondents
Compounding Application No. 12897 of 2019, Criminal Writ Petition No. 1658 of 2019
Decided On : 18-09-2019
Advocate Appeared:
Aditya Pratap Singh, Pratiroop Pandey, Ravi Bisht.
The power of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. The nature and gravity of the crime must be considered before exercising the power to quash criminal proceedings, and certain offences overwhelmingly and predominantly bearing a civil flavour may be quashed if the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak, and continuation of the criminal case would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice.
Headnote:
Quashing of F.I.R. - Private Dispute - Sections 504 and 406 I.P.C. - Section 482, Section 320 - The court discussed the broad guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and Narinder Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab and Another. The court highlighted the distinction between quashing of offence and compounding of offence, and emphasized that the power of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. The court also emphasized that the nature and gravity of the crime must be considered before exercising the power to quash criminal proceedings, and that certain offences overwhelmingly and predominantly bearing a civil flavour may be quashed if the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak, and continuation of the criminal case would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice. The court also considered the role of mercy, forgiveness, and compassion in law, and the delicate balance between conflicting interests in deciding the course of action in a particular case.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought quashing of F.I.R. dated 13.06.2019, being F.I.R. No. 0336 of 2019, under Sections 504 and 406 I.P.C. registered at Police Station Manglaur, District Haridwar. The dispute between the parties was private in nature and the matter was still being investigated by the police.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the parties had entered into a compromise, and the possibility of the trial resulting in conviction of the accused was remote and bleak. Continuation of criminal proceedings would visit the accused with great oppression, prejudice, and injustice, and would tantamount to abuse of process of law. The court allowed the writ petition and quashed the F.I.R. along with all the proceedings emanating therefrom.
Issues: The main issue was whether the F.I.R. under Sections 504 and 406 I.P.C. should be quashed in view of the compromise reached between the parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the nature and gravity of the crime must be considered before exercising the power to quash criminal proceedings. It emphasized that certain offences overwhelmingly and predominantly bearing a civil flavour may be quashed if the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak, and continuation of the criminal case would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice. The court also considered the role of mercy, forgiveness, and compassion in law, and the delicate balance between conflicting interests in deciding the course of action in a particular case.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and F.I.R. dated 13.06.2019, being F.I.R. No. 0336 of 2019, under Sections 504 and 406 I.P.C. registered at Police Station Manglaur, District Haridwar was quashed along with all the proceedings emanating therefrom.
JUDGMENT :
Manoj K. Tiwari, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought quashing of F.I.R. dated 13.06.2019, being F.I.R. No. 0336 of 2019, under Sections 504 and 406 I.P.C. registered at Police Station Manglaur, District Haridwar.
3. A compounding application, jointly signed by counsel for the complainant (respondent No. 3) and counsel for the petitioner has been filed duly supported by affidavits of petitioner and respondent No. 3 (complainant).
4. Petitioner and respondent no. 3 (complainant), are present in the Court today who are duly identified by their counsels.
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 her and petitioner; she does not want to pursue the matter any further.
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 and Others vs. State of Punjab and Another, (2014) 6 SCC 466, request of the petitioners deserve 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 ends of justice would justify such exercise of power although the ultimate consequence may be acquittal or dismissal of indictment."
9. In the case of Narinder Singh (Supra) Hon'ble Apex Court has held in para 11, 12 and 17, as under:-
"11. As to under what circumstances the criminal proceedings in a no
