This order allowed a compoundable application to compound offences under Sections 323 and 342 IPC. On this basis, the Court quashed the charge-sheet and pending criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Compounding application and application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. allowed; charge-sheet and criminal case proceedings 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. 467 of 2015
Mahesh Patel
……. Applicant
versus
State of Uttarakhand & another ……. Respondents
Mr. Tumul K. Nailwal, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Raman Kumar Shah, Dy. Advocate General with Mr. K.S. Rawal, Brief Holder for the respondent State. Mr. Prakash Petshali, Advocate for respondent no. 2.
U.C. Dhyani, J.(Oral)
A charge-sheet has been filed against the applicant for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 342 IPC.
2
no. 2 Km. Sapna Sharma are also annexed with the application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
3
“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 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,
4
the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.”
(U.C. Dhyani, J.)
Dt. April 20, 2015. Negi
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the complainant and victim should be permitted to compound the offences complained against the accused-applicant.
Whether the criminal proceedings should be quashed on the basis of the compromise arrived at between the parties.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and anotherRelied on¶16
Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 160 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Mahesh Patel
State of Uttarakhand
K.S. Rawal
U.C. Dhyani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
