IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL [CASE NUMBER] (Under [SECTION] [ACT]) [ENTITY] and others Applicants versus [ENTITY] & another Respondents Mr. [ENTITY], Advocate, present for the petitioners/applicants. Mr. [ENTITY], learned AGA, present for the State/respondent no. 1. Mr. [ENTITY], Advocate, present for the respondent no. 2. [ENTITY], J. (Oral)
1. The applicants, by way of present petition/application moved under [SECTION] [ACT], seek to quash the impugned charge sheet, which is enclosed as annexure 8 to the petition. The applicants also make a prayer to quash the entire proceedings of [PRECEDENT], under [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION] and [SECTION] [ACT], pending in the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate, Rishikesh, Dehradun.
2. A first information report was lodged by respondent no. 2 against the applicants on 29.03.2012, in PS Rishikesh as regards aforesaid offences. Respondent no. 3, who lodged the first information report is the trusty of Shri Gangadhareswar Trust Dayanand Ashram Purani Jhadi Muni Ki Reti, District Tehri Garhwal. [CASE NUMBER] is filed on behalf of respondent no. 2 for permission to compound the offences complained of against the applicants. It is prayed on behalf of respondent no. 2 to permit him to compound the offences against the applicants and quash the impugned charge-sheet dated 28.06.2012 as well as the entire proceedings of [CASE NUMBER] pending in the Court of learned Additional Judicial Magistrate, Rishikesh, Dehradun.
3. Respondent no. 2 as well as the applicant no. 1 are present in person before this Court. They are duly identified by their respective learned counsel. Respondent no. 2 stated that the trust is no more interested in pursuing the case against the applicants. In other words, they are not willing to prosecute the applicants. Offence punishable under [SECTION] [ACT] is compoundable one with the permission of the Court under the Scheme of [SECTION] [ACT] The offence may be compounded by the person cheated, with the permission of the Court. So far as the other offences are concerned, they are non compoundable offences. The question is - whether respondent no. 2 may should be permitted to compound the offense punishable under [SECTION] [ACT] including [SECTION] [ACT] against the applicants or not ?
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the ruling of [PRECEDENT]. Paragraph 24 of the said judgment is reproduced below for ready reference:
"24. On an overall view of the facts as indicated hereinabove and keeping in mind the decision of this Court in [ENTITY]'s case ([PRECEDENT] and the compromise arrived at between the parties, I am satisfied that this is a fit case where technicality should not be allowed to stand in the way in the quashing of the criminal proceedings, since, in our view, the continuance of the same after the compromise arrived at between the parties would be a futile exercise."
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners drew the attention of this Court towards the ruling of [PRECEDENT] 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] 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 [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 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."
6. The instant case is squarely covered by the said ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is also pertinent to note that the offence punishable under [SECTION] [ACT] is compoundable offence, which find place in the list contained under [SECTION] [ACT] The only thing which required consideration is whether the respondent no. 2 should be permitted to compound the offences punishable under [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION] [ACT] along with [SECTION] [ACT] or not and the obvious reply is in the affirmative in view of the rulings of Hon'ble Apex Court in [PRECEDENT], [ENTITY]'s case (2003(4) SCC
675) and [PRECEDENT].
7. [CASE NUMBER] is thus allowed. As a consequence of the same, the charge sheet no. 55 of 2012, dated 28.06.2012, filed in [PRECEDENT] and the entire proceedings pursuant thereto, of [CASE NUMBER], [PRECEDENT], under [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION] and [SECTION] [ACT], pending in the Court of learned Additional Judicial Magistrate, Rishikesh, Dehradun are hereby quashed in terms of the compromise entered into between the parties, i.e. respondent no. 2 and the applicants.
([ENTITY], J.) 17.04.2013 [ENTITY]