The High Court can quash criminal proceedings for compoundable offences when the disputes between victim and offender are resolved amicably, ensuring judicial efficiency.

JUDGMENT :

GITA GOPI, J.

1. Challenge in these appeals is given to the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 3.4.2012 passed by the learned Special Judge (Atrocity) and Additional Sessions Judge, Surendranagar in Special Case no.14 of 2011 for the offence punishable under Sections 323 , 504, 114 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) as well as Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989 (hereinafter referred to as “the Atrocities Act”), whereby the learned Judge has acquitted the appellants for the offence punishable under Sections 504 of the IPC and Section 3(1) (x) of the Atrocities Act. The learned Judge has convicted the appellants for the offence punishable under Sections 323 and 34 of the IPC to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months with fine of Rs.1,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, the appellants to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days.

2. Learned advocate Mr. Premal Joshi has submitted that during the pendency of the proceedings, the parties have settled the disputes amicably outside the Court and that there remains no grievance between them.

3. Labhubhai Virabhai Sindhav – original complainant has filed an affidavit of settlement and has affirmed the contents of the affidavit and is identified by Mr. Nilesh Koyani, learned advocate for the original complainant. Learned advocate seeks permission to file Vakalatnama.Let Vakalatnama be accepted. Labhubhai Virabhai Sindhav–original complainant was instructed to appear through the Video Conferencing. He had chosen to remain personally present before this Court. The original complainant states that the issue was minor and has been settled with the intervention of the village people and community persons. He states that he does not want to proceed with the matter as he is desirous of peace and serenity in the village and want to cordially stay with all of them. He further stated that the accused have never disputed with him after this matter and held him with great respect in the village.

4. Ms. Monali Bhatt, learned APP, objecting to the settlement, has stated that the State has filed two appeals, one is for enhancement of sentence and another is against acquittal, while the accused had challenged the conviction under Sections 323 and 34 of the IPC. Learned APP has submitted that it is necessary to verify from the complainant whether any compensation has been received by him. The complainant has stated that he has received Rs.5,000/- from some Social Welfare Department.

5. Considering the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 , the present matter would fall under the criteria laid down therein. In paragraph-61 of the said judgment, it has been observed thus:-

“61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz.: (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR may be exercised where the offender and the victim have settled their dispute would depend on t