Back
2020 Supreme(UK) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Manoj K. Tiwari, J.
Azam And Others - Appellant
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand And Others - Respondent
Compounding Application No. 456 of 2020; Criminal Writ Petition No. 64 of 2020
Decided On : 09-01-2020
Mohd Safdar, Advocate, Mamta Joshi, Advocate, Parikshit Saini, Advocate
Headnote:
Compounding Application – In respect of serious offences or other offences of mental depravity or offence of merely dacoity under special statute, like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servant while working in that capacity – Mere settlement between the parties would not be a ground to quash the proceedings by the High Court and inasmuch as settlement of such heinous crime cannot have imprimatur of the Court – But, in the present case, F.I.R. indicates that the dispute between the parties was private in nature and the parties have entered into a compromise – Thus, criminal proceedings quashed. (Paras 7 to 12)
'keuh; ;kfpdk & xaHkhj vijk/kksa ;k ekufld foÑfr ds vU; vijk/kksa ds lacaèk esa] ;k fof’k"V fo/kku tSls fd Hkz"Vkpkj fuokj.k vfèkfu;e ds vUrxZr ek= MdSrh dk vijk/k ;k ljdkjh deZdkj }kjk dk;Zjr vijk/k dkfjr esa ek= i{kksa ds e/; le>kSrk & mPp U;k;ky; }kjk dk;Zokgh [kaMu dk vk/kkj ugha gks ldrk & dfFkr t?kU; vijkèkksa esa le>kSrs dks U;k;ky; dh vuqefr ugha & ijUrq izLrqr okn esa izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ ls Kkr Fkk fd nksuksa i{kksa ds e/; fookn futh Fkk vkSj nksuksa i{kksa ds e/; le>kSrk gks x;k Fkk & blfy, vijkf/kd dk;Zokgh [kf.MrA ¼izLrj 7 ls 12½
JUDGMENT
Manoj K. Tiwari, J. - Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. By means of this writ petition, petitioners have sought quashing of Case Crime No. 339 of 2019, under Sections 147, 148, 354, 452, 504 & 506 of I.P.C. and Section 3/10 of SC/ST Act, registered at Police Station Jaspur, 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 petitioner No. 1 Azam, respondent No. 1 Ms. Urmila Devi (complainant), Ms. Saloni Devi (injured) and Ms. Umesh Devi (injured).
4. Petitioners and respondent Nos. 3 to 5 are personally present in Court today who are duly identified by their counsels.
5. Learned counsel 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/respondent No. 3 as well as injured (respondent Nos. 4 & 5) made statement that in view of the settlement arrived at between them and the petitioners; they do 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 & others Vs State of Punjab & 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 indi
