Court can accept a settlement between parties if case against the accused is not very strong: High Court of Uttarakhand

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Appliation No. 3711 under Section 482 Cr.P.C.) Heera Lal & others …..Applicants State of Uttarakhand and others Respondents Mr. Lalit Sharma learned counsel for the applicants. Mrs. Mamta Joshi learned Brief Holder for the State. Mr. Piyush Singh Kharayat learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 to 6. Dated: 16th June 2021 Hon’ble N.S. Dhanik J. This criminal misc. application has been filed by the applicants to quash the cognizance order dated 19.12.2017 and the entire proceedings in Criminal Case No. 11417 “State vs. Heera Lal others” under Sections 147 148 149 323 452 354 504 506 & 307 IPC pending before Judicial Magistrate Bazpur District U.S. Nagar. Now parties have compounding application stating therein that they have entered into compromise and amicably settled their dispute and now the respondent nos. 2 to 6 do not have any grievance with the applicants. In support of compounding application affidavits have been filed by the applicants as well as respondent nos. 2 to 6. 2 On 18.03.2021 parties were present before were present before this Court duly identified by their respective counsels. They admitted the settlement. application bears signatures thumb impressions of the applicants and respondent nos. 2 to 6. It has been further stated by the parties that now they have amicably settled their dispute. Therefore learned Counsel for the parties have submitted that the entire proceedings be quashed in terms of the compromise. Learned State Counsel opposed compounding application and submits that vide order dated 18.03.2021 medical reports pertaining to the case were to be brought on record but a bare perusal of entire case diary reveals that there is no medical report. She further orally admits that there is no medical report in the instant case. Learned Counsel for the applicants placed reliance on a recent judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan 5 SCC 688 wherein it has been observed as under: “Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be generally treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone. However the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence which if proved would lead to proving the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained whether such injury is inflicted on the vital delicate parts of the body nature of weapons used etc. Medical report in respect of injuries suffered by the victim can generally be the guiding factor. On the basis of this prima facie analysis the High Court can examine as to whether there is a strong possibility of conviction or the chances of conviction are remote and bleak. In the former case it can refuse to accept the settlement and quash the criminal proceedings whereas in the latter case it would be permissible for the High Court to accept the plea compounding the offence based on complete settlement between the parties. At this stage the Court can also be swayed by the fact that the settlement between the parties is going to result in harmony between them which may improve their future relationship.” say non compoundable offences cannot be compounded. But considering the above authority of the Hon’ble Apex Court and also the proposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Nikhil Merchant v. C.B.I. & Ors 9 SCC 677 B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana & Anr. reported in4 SCC 675 and in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Another 10 SCC 303 where there is a genuine compromise and there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being convicted and continuance of the proceedings after the compromise having been arrived at between the parties would be a futile exercise the compromise should be accepted. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the legal proposition propounded by the Hon’ble Apex Court compounding application is allowed. Compromise arrived at between the parties is accepted. Consequently the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 11417 “State vs. Heera Lal others” under Sections 147 148 149 323 452 354 504 506 & 307 IPC pending before Judicial 4 Magistrate Bazpur District U.S. Nagar are quashed qua the applicants in terms of the compromise. Present criminal misc. application stands disposed of accordingly. 16.06.2021 

Summary: Serious criminal offences are considered as crimes against society and not just against the victim and because of this, compromises are usually not encouraged. However in cases where the case is not very strong against the accused and the probability of his conviction is not very high, any genuine settlement between the victim and offender may be accepted by the court. The issue of such settlements was addressed in the case of Heera Lal v State of Uttarakhand [Criminal Misc. Application No. 379 of 2011] where a judgement was passed on 16th of June 2021 by a single member bench of the Uttarakhand High Court consisting of Justice N.S Dhanik. The applicant Heera Lal was accused of rioting, trespass, assaulting a woman, criminal intimidation and attempt to murder and had State v Heera Lal [Criminal Case No. 1148 of 2017] pending against him under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 453, 354, 504, 506 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. However all the parties involved jointly filed a compounding application stating before the court that they have amicably settled their dispute and the victims no longer have any grievances with the applicant. Hence the applicant pleaded before the court to quash the pending proceedings against him. The state counsel on the other hand vehemently opposed the applicant’s prayer. The applicant’s counsel cited the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v Laxmi Narayan [(2019), 5 SCC 688] where the Supreme Court of India noted that attempt to murder which falls under Section 307 of the IPC was a serious and heinous offence. However it was also added that if the injury sustained was not too substantial, the High Court may accept a settlement between the two parties. The court also cited the cases of Nikhil Merchant v CBI [(2008) 9 SCC 677] and B.S. Joshi v State of Haryana [(2003) 4 SCC 675] where the courts mentioned that a compromise between the offender and the victim was acceptable especially in cases where the probability of conviction is not very high.