Back
2020 Supreme(UK) 236
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Lok Pal Singh, J.
Jajvinder Singh - Appellant
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand And Others - Respondent
Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 1198 of 2020
Decided On : 19-08-2020
Vikas Kumar Guglani, Advocate, Shivangi Gagnwar, Advocate
Headnote:
(A) Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 226, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Sec. 320 and Indian Penal Code, 1860, Secs. 420 and 506 – After dismissal of first criminal petition as withdraw with liberty to file the compounding application before the Magistrate – Second writ petition was filed for quashing of FIR – Compounding for offences – After reaching for amicable settlement, complainant has received his amount back from the petitioner – Permissibility of – Practice and Procedure – For entertaining the second writ petition on the same cause of action – Held, if the petitioner and respondent No. 3 have amicably settled the dispute they should have approached to the I.O. by filing an affidavit that the investigation be concluded – Filing of subsequent writ petition on the same cause of action is an abuse of process of law – It wastes the valuable time of the Court at the cost of genuine cases – Writ petition not maintainable – Dismissed with cost of Rs. 1,00,000/-.
(Paras 5, 10, 11 and 18)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Sec. 320 – Compounding of offence – What is proper forum – Effect of – Filing application for compounding of offences straightaway before the High Court – Considered. (Paras 8 and 9)
(C) Forum shopping – The practice of forum shopping is against the judicial discipline – The act of bench hunting or bench shopping or bench avoiding is not permissible under the law – No litigants can play hide and seek with the Courts or adopt pick and choose. (Para 17)
¼v½ Hkkjrh; lafo/kku] 1950] vuqPNsn 226] n.M izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973] /kkjk 320 vkSj Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk] 1860] /kkjk 420 ,oa 506 & izFke nkf.Md ;kfpdk ds eftLVªsV ds le{k 'keu gsrq izkFkZuk i= nkf[ky djus dh Lora=rk ds lkFk okil fy;s tkus ds :i esa [kkfjth ds i’pkr~ & f}rh; fjV ;kfpdk izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ dks vfHk[kf.Mr djus ds fy, nkf[ky dh xbZ & vijk/kksa dk 'keu&vkilh le>kSrs ij igq¡pus ds i’pkr] ifjoknh ¼f’kdk;rdÙkkZ½ ;kfpdkdÙkkZ ls viuh /kujkf’k okil izkIr dj pqdk gS & vuqerr&Oogkj vkSj izfØ;k & mlh okn ds dkj.k ij f}rh; fjV ;kfpdk xzg.k djus ds fy, & vfHk/kkfjr] ;fn ;kfpdkdÙkkZ vkSj foi{kh la[;k 3 us vkil esa fookn lqy>k fy;k gS] rks mUgksaus bl vk’k; dk 'kiFki= nkf[ky djrs gq, tk¡p vf/kdkjh ds ikl tkuk pkfg, fd tk¡p lekIr dh tk, & ,d gh okn ds dkj.k ij ckn esa iqu% fjV ;kfpdk nkf[ky djuk fof/k dh vknsf’kdk dk nq#i;ksx gS & ;g mfpr izkekf.kd ekeyksa dh dher ij U;k;ky; dk cgqewY; le; u"V djrk gS & fjV ;kfpdk iks"k.kh; ugha gS & #ñ 1]00]000@& ij [kkfjtA ¼izLrj 5] 10] 11 ,oa 18½
¼c½ n.M izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973] /kkjk 320 & vijk/kksa dk 'keu fd;k tkuk & mfpr ek¡x D;k gS & izHkko & mPp U;k;ky; ds le{k lh/ks rkSj ij vijk/kksa ds 'keu ds fy, fjV ;kfpdk nkf[ky djus ds izHkko ij & fopkj fd;k x;kA ¼izLrj 8 ,oa 9½
¼l½ eap Ø; djuk & eap Ø; djus dk O;ogkj U;kf;d vuq’kklu ds fo#) gS & ihB dk f’kdkj vFkok ihB Ø; djuk vFkok ihB ls cpuk fof/k ds v/khu vuqes; ugha gS & dksbZ Hkh okndkjh U;k;ky; ds lkFk yqdk&fNih dk [ksy ugha [ksy ldrk & vFkok bPNkuqlkj pquko ugha dj ldrkA ¼izLrj 17½
JUDGMENT
Lok Pal Singh, J. - By means of present writ petition, petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of F.I.R. No. 353 of 2019 under Sections 420 & 506 of I.P.C. lodged at Police Station-Kichha, District Udham Singh Nagar.
2. This is the second writ petition for quashing of impugned F.I.R.. Alongwith the writ petition a compounding application (CLMA 5756 of 2020) has been filed by the petitioner and respondent no.3 stating therein that petitioner and respondent no.3 have settled their dispute amicably. Earlier the petitioner filed criminal writ petition no. 1098 of 2020 alongwith compounding application no. CLMA 5198 of 2020 for the same relief. The first petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to file the compounding application before the Magistrate concerned by this Court vide order dated 27.07.2020. Thereafter, the roaster changed and the jurisdiction of WPCRL was assigned to some another bench.
3. The coordinate bench passed the following order :
"Mr. Vikas Kumar Guglani, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. P.S. Bohra, AGA for the State.
Mr. Shubham Chhabra, Advocate for the respondent.
This matter is heard through Video conferencing.
List this matter before the Bench, which earlier decided the similar writ petition on 27.07.2020."
4. Thereafter, the writ petition is nominated to this Court by Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice.
5. It is contended in the compounding application that the petitioner and respondent no.3 have now settled their dispute amicably and the complainant has received his amount back from the petitioner. It is further contended that the petitioner and respondent no.3 have no other alternative efficacious remedy except to approach this Court. It is further contended that the dispute between the petitioner and respondent no.3 is of civil in nature and first information report was lodged on the pretext that the petitioner is not returning the money to the respondent and now the petitioner has return the money to respondent no.3. On the aforesaid contents, the second criminal writ petition has been filed. Second writ petition has been filed after its withdrawal with the same averments.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that no charge sheet has been submitted in the matter as yet, therefore, the present petition has been filed alongwith the compounding application. He would further submit that the investigation is going on in the matter and the allegations levelled by the respondent no.3 in aforesaid F.I.R. are cognizable offences.
7. To this, learned Standing Counsel would submit that the present writ petition cannot be entertained as it is not permissible in law to file the second writ petition for the same cause of action.
8. This Court on several occasion noticed that in most of the cases where the first information report has been lodged and when the court took cognizance against the accusedpetitioner, thereafter usually some reconciliation take place between the parties and the parties seek compounding of the offences complained against the accused-petitioner before the court. It is further observed that it is a practice prevailing to file the compounding application straightaway before this Court bypassing the trial court, which is the first court to compound the offence, as envisaged under the scheme of Section 320 Cr.P.C..
9. While exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India I have no hesitation in saying that it is a practice prevailing in this Court to file the compounding application straightaway before this court, bypassing the trial court, which is the first court to compound the offence, as envisaged under the scheme of Section 320 Cr.P.C. and because of these type of cases, the High Court instead of adjudicating the cases of those litigants whose cases are pending since long and who have no other alternative efficacious remedy, is engaged in deciding the compounding applications. The Centra
