When matter is amicably settled between the parties, the complainants should be permitted to compound such offences against the applicants: High Court of Uttarakhand.
Where the petitioner and respondent had amicably settled the dispute and the complainants do not want to prosecute the petitioner further, therefore, the complainants (respondents herein), should be permitted to compound such offences against the applicants. A single Judge bench comprising Hon’ble Justice R.C. Khulbe, in the matter of Narendra Versus State of Uttarakhand &amp; Anr (Compounding Application No. 2 of 2021 In Criminal Writ Petition No. 1189 of 2021), dealt with an issue where the petitioner filed present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by the petitioner to quash the FIR filed under Sections 147, 307, 504 and 506 IPC at Police Station Ranipur District Haridwar. In the present case, the compounding application had been filed on behalf of the parties with a prayer that the parties have buried their differences and have settled their dispute amicably. Also, it was in the record that opposite party no. 3-Vipin Kumar, the party no. 4 Ravindra and party no. 5 Sonu @ Hartik do not want to prosecute the petitioner and the dispute had been amicably settled between them. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that injuries sustained by the petitioner were not dangerous to life, hence, no case u/s 307 is made out against the petitioner. As per the medical report, all the injuries were simple in nature. Thereby the court considered that no offence was made out against the petitioner under Section 307 of IPC. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Nikhil Merchant vs. C.B.I. and another, 2008 AIR SCW 7501 and Dimpey Gujral vs Union Territory through Administrator U.T. Chandigarh and others, [2013 (123) AIC 119 (S.C.) has permitted compounding of such type of offences, which are otherwise non-compoundable, within the scheme of Section 320 of Cr.P.C. It was observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court that the inherent power of the Court will not come in the way of compounding of otherwise non-compoundable offences. The court observed – “Since the complainants have settled the dispute amicably with the petitioner and do not want to prosecute the petitioner further, therefore, the complainants (respondents herein), should be permitted to compound such offences against the applicants.” The present petitioner was thereby quashed on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties and the writ petition was disposed of.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT Compounding Application No. 21 Criminal Writ Petition No. 11821 Narendra .. Petitioner State of Uttarakhand & Anr. Mr. V.S. Chauhan learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Sachin Panwar learned Brief Holder for the State. Mr. Priyansh Kumar learned counsel for the complainant. Hon’ble R.C. Khulbe J. Present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by the petitioner to quash the FIR dated 04.01.2019 registered as FIR No. 004 of 2019 under Sections 147 307 504 and 506 IPC at Police Station Ranipur District Haridwar application has been filed on behalf of the parties with a prayer that the parties have buried their differences and have settled their dispute amicably. The compromise is on the record duly notarized by the Notary wherein it has clearly mentioned that opposite party no. 3 Vipin Kumar party no. 4 Ravindra and party no. 5 Sonu @ Hartik do not want to prosecute the petitioner and the dispute has been amicably settled between them. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the injuries sustained by the petitioner were not dangerous to life hence no case u s 307 is made out against the petitioner. I have also gone through the medical report which is on record. As per the medical report all the injuries are simple in nature. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and after going through the medical report in my considered view no offence under Section 307 of IPC is made out against the petitioner. Offences punishable under Sections 504 and 506 IPC are compoundable offences within the scheme of Section 320 Cr.P.C. whereas offence under Section compoundable. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the cases of Nikhil Merchant vs. C.B.I. and another 2008 AIR SCW 7501 and Dimpey Gujral vs Union Territory through Administrator U.T. Chandigarh and others AIC 119 has permitted compounding of such type of offences which are otherwise non compoundable within the scheme of Section 320 of Cr.P.C. It was observed by Hon ble Apex Court that the inherent power of the Court will not come in the way of compounding of otherwise non compoundable offences. The Hon ble Apex Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another1 SCC160 has observed in the context of such cases as under: to quash “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 to secure the ends of justice orto prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on 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 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 cases having offences. But overwhelmingly and pre dominatingly flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing particularly the offences arising financial mercantile civil from commercial 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 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 law despite settlement and of process of 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.” Since the complainants have settled the dispute amicably with the petitioner and does not want to prosecute the petitioner further therefore the complainants should be permitted to compound such offences against the In view of the above compromise application is allowed. As a consequence of the same FIR dated 04.01.2019 registered as FIR No. 004 of 2019 under Sections 147 307 504 and 506 IPC at Police Station Ranipur District Haridwar qua the present petitioner is hereby quashed on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties. The present criminal writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. 10. Pending application if any also stands disposed of. 