The Court allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings involving matrimonial offences including dowry, citing a settlement between the parties where the victim expressed no desire to prosecute or adduce evidence.
Summoning order, charge-sheet, and criminal case proceedings were set aside and quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application (C-482) No. 547 of 2011
……. Gopal Datt Gaur and others Applicants versus State of Uttarakhand & another ……. Respondents with
Criminal Misc. Application (C-482) No. 616 of 2013
……. Vijay Datt Gaur Applicant versus
State of Uttarakhand & another ……. Respondents
Mr. Lalit Sharma, Advocate for the applicant(s). Mr. S.S. Adhikari, Brief Holder for the respondent State. None present for respondent no. 2.
U.C. Dhyani, J.(Oral)
The applicant(s), by means of present applications / petitions under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seek to quash the summoning order dated 23.11.2009, charge-sheet dated 19.06.2009, as also the proceedings of criminal case no. 908 of 2010 (old no. 11330 of 2009), State vs Gopal Datt Gaur and others, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 of IPC and Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act, pending in the court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate II, Dehradun.
2
3
non-compoundable offences. The only question which is left for consideration of this Court is whether respondent no. 2 should be permitted to compound such offences complained of against the accused-applicants or not?
“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 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
4
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.”
(U.C. Dhyani, J.)
Dt. May 16, 2014. Negi
3 issues framed by the court
Whether respondent no. 2 should be permitted to compound non-compoundable offences under Section 498A IPC and Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act based on a settlement deed.
Whether the High Court may quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. when a compromise is reached and conviction becomes remote.
Whether continuation of criminal proceedings despite settlement would amount to abuse of process of law.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gian Singh vs. State of PunjabExplained¶16
Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 160 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Gopal Datt Gaur
Vijay Datt Gaur
State of Uttarakhand
U.C. Dhyani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
