Back
2024 Supreme(UK) 252
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Manoj K. Tiwari, J.
Karan Bhalla & others - Applicants
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & others - Respondents
Compounding Application No. 1 of 2024 IN Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 211 of 2024
Decided On : 08-08-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Applicant :Mr. K.K. Harbola , Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Vijay Pal, learned A.G.A., Mr. Dheeraj Joshi, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be used to quash proceedings in personal disputes even if the offences are non-compoundable.
Headnote:
Quashing - Criminal Proceedings - IPC Sections 324, 323, 504, 506; Cr.P.C. Section 482 - The court discussed the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings when parties settle disputes, emphasizing the distinction between compounding and quashing, and the necessity of justice.
Fact of the Case:
An FIR was lodged against the applicants under various IPC sections. The applicants challenged the ongoing criminal proceedings, stating that the parties had reached an amicable settlement and sought to quash the case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the dispute was personal and not against society, and that continuing the proceedings would be futile given the settlement between the parties.
Issues: Whether the court can quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. when the parties have settled their dispute, despite the offence being non-compoundable.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that it can exercise its inherent powers to quash proceedings if the continuation would be an abuse of process and justice demands it, especially in personal disputes.
Result: The criminal proceedings against the applicants were quashed, subject to a cost payment.
JUDGMENT :
Manoj K. Tiwari, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
2. An F.I.R. was lodged by respondent No. 2 on 28.06.2014 against the applicants, under Sections 324, 323, 504 & 506 of I.P.C. The police, upon completion of investigation, submitted charge-sheet on 02.06.2015 under the aforesaid Sections against the applicants. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Dehradun took cognizance against the applicants under the aforesaid sections vide order dated 05.12.2015.
3. This Criminal Miscellaneous Application has been filed by the applicants challenging the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 61 of 2023 (Old No. 4012 of 2015), pending in the court of learned Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate, Mussoorie, District Dehradun.
4. A compounding application No. 1 of 2024 has been filed along with this criminal miscellaneous application duly supported by affidavits of the complainant/respondent No. 2 – Ishwinder Singh as wellas Victim/respondent no. 3 – Rajan Kumar and applicants (Karan Bhalla, Vijay Handa & Rishab Dhawan).
5. Learned counsels for the parties submit that parties have buried their differences and entered into a compromise and settled the dispute amicably outside the court, therefore, no useful purpose would be served if the criminal case is continued. Mr. Dheeraj Joshi, learned counsel for the complainant & victim further submits that their clients want to compound the matter before this Court against the applicants.
6. Both the parties are present before the Court today, who are duly identified by their respective counsels.
7. Complainant & victim appeared before the Court and submitted that in view of the settlement arrived between them and the applicants, they do not want to prosecute the applicants any further. State counsel has opposed the compounding application, as the offence under Section 324 of I.P.C. is not compoundable.
8. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another (supra), has considered the question with regard to the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in quashing the criminal proceedings against the offender, who has settled his dispute with the victim of the crime in a case, where crime is not compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C. Paragraph Nos.57 and 58 of the said judgment are extracted below:-
“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.
58. Where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that dispute between the offender and victim has been settled although offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. No doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful effect on the public and consist in wrong doing that seriously endangers and threatens well-being of society and it is not safe to leave the crime- doer only because he and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the victim ha
