Uttarakhand High CourtOmkar And Others vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 12 July, 2017Author:U.C. DhyaniBench:U.C. DhyaniIN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

     Criminal Misc. Application (C-482) No. 904 of 2017

Omkar & five others                        .......              Applicants
                                    versus

State of Uttarakhand and another           .......          Respondents

Mr. Prakash Bhatt, Advocate for the applicants.
Mr. Prem Kaushal, Brief Holder for the respondent State.
Mr. Sanjeev Singh, Advocate for respondent no. 2.

U.C. Dhyani, J.(Oral)Offences alleged against the accused-applicants
are underSections 147,149,308,325,504,506IPC.2)            By means of present application underSection
482Cr.P.C., jointly filed by the parties, a prayer has been
made to grant permission to the complainant-respondent
no. 2 and the injured-victim to compound the offences
alleged against the accused-applicants indicating that both
the parties have buried their differences and have settled
their   dispute     amicably.      Affidavits      of      complainant-
respondent no. 2 and injured- victim Sinod, as also
accused-applicant no. 5 Vijay Pal have been filed along
with the C-482 petition.3)            Accused-applicants Sudesh, Vijay Pal and
Pradeep are present in person before the Court duly
identified by their counsel Mr. Prakash Bhatt, Advocate.
Complainant-respondent no. 2 Jasveer Singh and injured-
victim Sinod are also present in person before the Court2duly identified by their counsel Mr. Sanjeev Singh,
Advocate.4)          The complainant-respondent no. 2 and injured
victim stated that they are no more interested in prosecuting
the applicants, in as much as the dispute between the
parties has been resolved amicably. They further stated
that they may be permitted to compound the offences
alleged against the accused-applicants. Accused-applicants
also affirm what is stated by the complainant and injured in
the open Court.5)          Whereas some of the offences complained of
against the applicants are compoundable offences within
the scheme ofSection 320of Cr.P.C., others are not.6)          The    only   question    which    is   left   for
consideration of this Court is whether the injured-
respondent no. 2 should be permitted to compound the
offences alleged against the accused-applicants or not?7)          The obvious reply to the question posed above
is in the affirmative in view of the decision rendered by
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Dimpy Gujral vs
Union Territory through Administrator U.T. Chandigarh
and others, [2013 (123) AIC 119 (S.C.)] and Narendra
Singh and others vs State of Punjab and another, (2014) 6
SCC 466, where the said Court has permitted compounding
of such type of offences, which are otherwise non-3compoundable, within the scheme of Section 320 of
Cr.P.C.8)            It will also be useful to reproduce the law laid
down by Hon'ble Apex Court inGian Singh vs. State of
Punjab and another(2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 160, wherein it
was observed, in the context of such cases, as under:"The position that emerges from the above discussion
     can be summarized 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 underSection 320of 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 of F.I.R. may be
     exercised where the offender and victim have settled their
     dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each
     case and no category can be prescribed. However, before
     exercise of such power, the High Court must have due
     regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and
     serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder,
     rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though
     the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled
     the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have
     serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise
     between the victim and offender in relation to the offences
     under special statues likePrevention of Corruption Actor
     the offences committed by public servants while working in
     that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing
     criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the
     criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly
     civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of
     quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial,
     financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like
     transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony
     relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the
     wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the
     parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of
     cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its
     view, because of the compromise between the offender and
     victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and4continuation of criminal case would put accused to great
       oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be
       caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full
       and complete settlement and compromise with the victim.
       In other words, the High Court must consider whether it
       would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to
       continue with the criminal proceedings or continuation of
       the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of
       process of law despite settlement and compromise between
       the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of
       justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end
       and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative,
       the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash
       the criminal proceeding."9)              Considering the fact that the injured-victim and
the complainant-respondent no. 2 are ready to compound
the offences alleged against the accused-applicants and the
parties belong to the same locality, therefore, the Court is
of the opinion that this matter should be given a quietus
and, accordingly, compounding should be permitted in the
interest of justice.10)             Application underSection 482of Cr.P.C. is,
accordingly, allowed. The entire proceedings of Sessions
Trial no. 186 of 2016,State vs Omkar and others, underSections 147,149,325,308,504,506IPC, pending in the
court of I Addl. Sessions Judge, Roorkee, Haridwar, are
hereby quashed on the basis of compromise arrived at
between the parties.(U.C. Dhyani, J.)

Dt. July 12, 2017.Negi