The High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash any criminal proceeding: High Court of Uttarakhand.
The High Court, in the 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. A single Judge Bench comprising Hon’ble Justice R.C. Khulbe, in the case of Muntijeer and others Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others (Crl. Misc. Application (C-482) No.929 of 2021), dealt with an issue where the petitioner filed the present application seeking to quash the entire proceedings of Crl. Case No. 918 of 2020, State v. Muntijeer and another, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Haridwar. In the present case, the parties had filed the compounding application to show that they have settled their dispute amicably. However, the counsel for the state opposed the compounding application. The counsel for applicants contended that the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506, 354 IPC were compoundable offences whereas under Sections 147, 148, 452 IPC were non-compoundable offences. Further, the Apex Court had dealt with the consequence of a compromise in regard to non-compoundable offences in the case of B.S.Joshi and others vs. the State of Haryana and another, (2003) 4 SCC 675 and has held- “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 a power of quashing.” Moreover, the parties also drew the attention of this Court towards the citation of Gian Singh v. the State of Punjab and another, (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 160, in which Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that- “the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding”. The court observed that the instant case was fairly covered by the above ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Thereby the compounding application was allowed and hence the pending proceeding was quashed.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Crl. Misc. ApplicationNo.9221 Compounding ApplicationMuntijeer and Others State of Uttarakhand & Others .…Respondents Mr. Sanjeev Singh learned counsel for the applicants. Mr. Siddhartha Bisht learned B.H. for the State of Uttarakhand. Mr. Niranjan Bhatt learned counsel for private respondents. Hon’ble R.C. Khulbe J. By way of present application moved under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. applicants seek to quash the entire proceedings of Crl. Case No. 9120State v. Muntijeer and another pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Haridwar District Haridwar. The parties have filed the above numbered compounding application to show that they have buried their differences and have settled their disputes Learned counsel for the State opposed the compounding application. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that the offences punishable under Sections 323 504 506 354 IPC are compoundable offences whereas under Sections 147 148 452 IPC are non compoundable offences. The Apex Court has dealt with consequence of a compromise in regard to non compoundable offences in the case of B.S.Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana and another 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.” 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 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 1 SCC 160 in which Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as below: that emerges in exercise of “The position the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz to secure the ends of justice or 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 involving such quashing criminal proceedings offences. But overwhelmingly and pre dominatingly civil favour 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.” 9. The instant case is squarely covered by the above ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The obvious reply to the question posed above is in the affirmative in view of the ruling of Hon’ble Apex Court in Gian Singh’s case