Proceedings to be quashed if there is a genuine compromise between parties given the offender is likely not to be convicted: High Court of Uttarakhand.
Hon’ble Justice N.S. Dhanik in a case regarding section 482 of the Cr.P.C adjudged that “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 and the proceedings should be quashed” in Sukhdev Singh and another Vs. State of Uttarakhand and another [Criminal Misc. Application (C-482) No. 831 of 2021] on 21st June, 2021. The applicant filed this application before the court to seek the summons order dated 20.08.2020 quashed. It was submitted that the parties have resolved the dispute amidst them and the injured are willing to let go of the prosecution. The state counsel however opposed such an application since the offence comes under section 307 of the Indian Penal code whose injuries are grievous is non-compoundable. In determining whether such an application can be allowed, the apex court relied on State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan,[(2019) 5 SCC 688] wherein it was held that, “, 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”.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. ApplicationNo. 8321 Sukhdev Singh and another …..Applicants State of Uttarakhand and another Respondents Mr. Abhishek Verma Advocate for the applicants. Mr. A.K. Sah learned Deputy Advocate General for the State. Mr. Ankit Sah learned counsel for the private respondent. Dated: 21st June 2021 Hon’ble N.S. Dhanik J. By way application moved under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. the applicants seek to quash the summoning order dated 20.08.2020 and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 6084 of 2020 “State v. Sukhdev Singh & others” for the offence punishable under Sections 307 269 270 341 504 506 147 148 and 149 IPC registered at PS I.T.I District Udham Singh Nagar pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Kashipur District Udham Singh Nagar. In support of compounding applicationaffidavits have been filed by Shri Sukhdev Singh who is doing pairvi on behalf of the applicant also by Shri Gurudev Singh by Shri Kamaljeet Singh Injured) and by Shri Lakhveer Singh5 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 nature of injuries 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 in 4 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 and the proceedings should be quashed. 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. 6084 of 2020 “State v. Sukhdev Singh & others” for the offence punishable under Sections 307 269 270 341 504 506 147 148 and 149 IPC registered at PS I.T.I District Udham Singh Nagar pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Kashipur District Udham Singh Nagar are hereby quashed so far it relates to the applicants only. The Present criminal miscellaneous application stands disposed of accordingly. Inform the Court concerned accordingly. 21.06.2021 