Uttarakhand High Court
Rahul Kumar And Another … vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others on 3 December, 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (Crl.) No.2188 of 2021
With
Compounding Application (IA/1/2021)
Rahul Kumar and Another ….Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & Others ….Respondents
Mr. S.K. Shandilya, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, learned AGA for the State.
Mr. T.P.S. Takuli, learned counsel for the private respondent.
Hon’ble R.C. Khulbe, J.
By means of this writ petition, filed under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners seek to quash the
impugned FIR No. 48 of 2021, under Section 420 of IPC and
u/s 66-D of I.T. Act, registered at Police Station Tanakpur,
District- Champawat.
2. The parties have filed the above-numbered
compounding application to show that they have buried their
differences and have settled their disputes amicably. The
parties are present before the Court today being duly
identified by their respective counsel and the informant-
Ravindra Singh fairly submitted that a compromise has taken
place between them; he has already received the entire
amount, as mentioned in the FIR and he does not want to
pursue the matter.
3. Learned counsel for the State opposes the
compounding application.
4. It is contended by learned counsel for the writ
petitioner that the offence punishable under Section 420 is
compoundable whereas offence under Section 66-D of I.T. Act
is non-compoundable. He further submitted that there is no
other criminal case pending against them.
5. The Apex Court has dealt with the consequence of
a compromise in regard to non-compoundable offences in the
2
case of B.S.Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana and
another, (2003) 4 SCC 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.”
6. Thus, the High Court, in exercise of its inherent
power can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint
and Section 320 of Cr.P.C. does not limit or affect the powers
under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has permitted
compounding of such offences in the decision of Nikhil
Merchant v. CBI and another, (2008) 9 SCC 650.
8. Learned counsel for the parties also drew the
attention of this Court towards the citation of Gian Singh v.
State of Punjab and another, (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 160,in
which Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as below:-
“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 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
3
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.”
9. The instant case is squarely covered by the above
ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
10. Accordingly, compounding application is allowed.
The entire proceedings, mentioned hereinabove, pending
between the parties are hereby quashed qua the present
petitioners only, on the basis of compromise arrived at
between the parties.
11. Present writ petition is disposed of, as above.
12. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of
accordingly.
(R.C. Khulbe, J.)
03.12.2021
BS
Comments