High Court allowed compounding application and quashed FIR against petitioner based on compromise between parties. Court exercised inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC and ordered immediate release of petitioner from judicial custody.
Compounding application allowed; FIR quashed qua petitioner; petitioner released from judicial custody
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
Writ Petition (Crl.) No.1951 of 2021 With Compounding Application (IA/1/2021)
Shadaab …….Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & Others .…Respondents
Mr. Pranav Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, learned AGA along with Ms. Sonika Khulbe, learned B.H. for the State.
Mr. Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel for the private respondent.
Hon’ble R.C. Khulbe, J.
By way of present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks to quash the impugned FIR No.0570 of 2021 dated 29.09.2021, U/s 380 and 411 of IPC, registered at P.S. Kotwali Gangnahar, District Haridwar.
2
675 and has held as below
“If for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necessary, Section 320 Cr.P.C. would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing. It is, however, a different matter depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case whether to exercise or not such a power.”
“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 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 statutes 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
3
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 proceeding 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.”
(R.C. Khulbe, J.)
26.10.2021 BS
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can quash criminal proceedings under inherent jurisdiction notwithstanding non-compoundable nature of offence.
Whether compounding application can be allowed and FIR quashed upon settlement between parties.
Whether petitioner in judicial custody should be released following quashing of proceedings.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
B.S. Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana and anotherExplained¶13
B.S. Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana and another, (2003) 4 SCC 675 · Who else cites this
Nikhil Merchant v. CBI and anotherExplained¶13
Nikhil Merchant v. CBI and another, (2008) 9 SCC 650 · Who else cites this
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and anotherExplained¶13
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another, (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 160 · Who else cites this
Shadaab
State of Uttarakhand
R.C. Khulbe
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
