Back
2020 Supreme(UK) 231
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Manoj K Tiwari, J.
Vivek Kumar - Appellant
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand And Others - Respondent
Compromise Application No. 2048 of 2020; Criminal Writ Petition No. 403 of 2020
Decided On : 27-02-2020
Sanjay Kumar, Advocate, Dinesh Chauhan, Advocate, Tapan Singh, Advocate
The power of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings is to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, and should be exercised sparingly, especially when there is a specific provision in the Code for the redress of the grievance of an aggrieved party.
Headnote:
Compounding - Criminal Proceedings - IPC 323, IPC 452 - 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.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought quashing of impugned F.I.R. under Sections 323 & 452 IPC, as the dispute had been amicably settled between the parties.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned F.I.R. and all proceedings emanating therefrom, as the dispute had been amicably settled between the parties, and continuation of criminal proceedings would visit the accused with great oppression, prejudice, and injustice.
Issues: Whether the impugned F.I.R. under Sections 323 & 452 IPC should be quashed due to the amicable settlement between the parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the power of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings is to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, and should be exercised sparingly, especially when there is a specific provision in the Code for the redress of the grievance of an aggrieved party.
Final Decision: The writ petition is allowed, and the impugned F.I.R. under Sections 323 & 452 IPC is quashed along with all the proceedings emanating therefrom qua petitioner only.
JUDGMENT
Manoj K. Tiwari, J. - Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought quashing of impugned F.I.R. dated 09.02.2020, being FIR No. 0057 of 2020, under Sections 323 & 452 IPC, registered at P.S. I.T.I., District Udham Singh Nagar.
3. A compromise 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, respondent No. 3 (complainant) and victim.
4. Complainant, victim as well as petitioners are present in the Court today who are duly identified by their respective counsels.
5. Learned Brief Holder appearing for the State submits that section 452 IPC is non-compoundable.
6. 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.
7. The complainant made a statement that in view of the compromise arrived at between him and the petitioner; he does not want to pursue the matter any further, therefore offences be compounded.
8. 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 deserves to be acceded to.
9. 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."
10. In the case o
