Allowed

Taslim and Ors. v. State and Anr.

Uttarakhand HC8 Oct 2013C482/283/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous application, the High Court of Uttarakhand allowed a petition seeking quashing of criminal proceedings. The court permitted the complainant to compound the charges following an amicable settlement and divorce, ultimately quashing the charge-sheet, summoning order, and entire criminal case under Section 482 CPC and Section 320 CPC.

What did the court decide?

Compounding application allowed; charge-sheet, summoning order, and entire proceedings of criminal case no. 50 of 2010 quashed.

Taslim and Ors. Vs State and Anr. — Matrimonial and Divorce | Uttarakhand HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application (C-482) No. 283 of 2010

Taslim and others

……. Applicants

versus

State of Uttarakhand & another ……. Respondents

¶6

Mr. Subhash Tyagi Bhardwaj, Advocate for the applicants. Mr. P.S. Saun, AGA with Ms. Shiwali Joshi, Brief Holder for the State / respondent no. 1.

¶7

Mr. Manish Arora, Advocate for respondent no. 2.

¶8

U.C. Dhyani, J.(Oral)

¶9

The applicants, by means of present application / petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seek to quash the charge-sheet, filed in case crime no. 445 of 2009, under Sections 498-A, 323, 324, 452, 504, 506 of IPC and Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act, police station, Kotwali Roorkee, District Haridwar; summoning order dated 11.01.2010, as well as the entire proceedings of criminal case no. 50 of 2010, State vs Naeem and others, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar.

¶10

Informant-respondent no. 2 lodged an FIR on 08.11.2009, at police station Kotwali Roorkee, District Haridwar against the accused persons, including the accused-applicants, for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 452, 504, 506, 498-A of IPC and Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act. After the investigation, a charge-sheet was

¶11

¶12

submitted against the accused-applicants in respect of selfsame offences. Cognizance was taken and accused persons were summoned to face the trail. Aggrieved against the same, present application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. was filed by the applicants.

¶13

A Compounding Application, being CRMA No. 1550 of 2013, is moved on behalf of the parties to indicate that the parties have settled their dispute amicably. Informant-respondent no. 2 Heena Kausar is present in person before the Court, duly identified by her counsel Mr. Sanjeev Singh, Advocate. Applicant no. 4 Naeem Ahmad is also present in person before the Court, duly identified by his counsel Mr. Subhash Tyagi Bhardwaj, Advocate.

¶14

Informant-respondent no. 2 stated that divorce has taken place between her and applicant no. 4. Respondent no. 2 submitted that she is not interested to prosecute the applicants any more. She prayed for permitting her to compound the offences complained of against the applicants. Respondent no. 2 further prayed that application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. be allowed, in as much as she has no grudge against the applicants.

¶15

Offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 504, 506 of IPC are compoundable offences within the scheme of Section 320 of Cr.P.C. Offences

¶16

¶17

punishable under Sections 452 and 498-A of IPC and Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act are noncompoundable offences.

¶18

The only question which is left for consideration of this Court is whether the complainantrespondent no. 2 should be permitted to compound such offences against the applicants or not?

¶19

Hon’ble Supreme Court in B.S. Joshi and others vs State of Haryana (2003) 4 SCC 675 has permitted compounding of such offences. In Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 160 , Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that the 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. Relevant paragraph of Gian Singh’s case ( supra ) is reproduced here-in-under for ready reference:

¶20

“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 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 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

¶21

¶22

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 like Prevention of Corruption Act or 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 and continuation 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.”

¶23

Since the complainant-respondent no. 2 has buried her differences amicably with the accusedapplicants, therefore, the complainant-respondent no. 2 should be permitted to compound such offences against the accused-applicants in the interest of society as well as in the interest of justice.

¶24

¶25

Compounding Application CRMA No. 1550 of 2013 is allowed. Consequently, the application under Section 482 is also allowed. Charge-sheet, filed in case crime no. 445 of 2009, under Sections 498-A, 323, 324, 452, 504, 506 of IPC and Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act, police station, Kotwali Roorkee, District Haridwar; summoning order dated 11.01.2010, as well as the entire proceedings of criminal case no. 50 of 2010, State vs Naeem and others, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar are hereby quashed on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.

¶26

(U.C. Dhyani, J.)

¶27

Dt. October 08, 2013.

¶28

Negi

¶29

Taslim and Ors. v. State and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Taslim and Ors. v. State and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ravi Prakash Agarwal and Others Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Others

Sanjay Vyas and Ors. Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr.

Setu Sharma Vs Smt. Deepa Sharma

Atul Patwal Vs State of Uttarakhand

Naresh Kumar Sharma Vs Smt. Urmila Sharma

Ashish Kumar Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr.