Section 320 of Cr.P.C. does not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure: 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 matter of Tushar Prajapati Vs. The state of Uttarakhand and another (Criminal Misc. Application (C482) No.1057 of 2021 With Compounding Application (CRMA 1 of 2021)), dealt with an issue where the petitioner filed this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the summoning order passed by the C.J.M., Dehradun in Crl. A case under Sections 323/354/427/452/ 504/506 IPC, along with a further prayer to quash the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case which are pending before the ACJM, Dehradun. In the present case, the compounding application had also been filed seeking to compound the offence between the parties on the basis of a compromise arrived at between them. The counsel for the state opposed the compounding application. The counsel for the applicant contended that offences punishable under Sections 323, 354, 427, 504 and 506 IPC were compoundable offences whereas Section 452 IPC was a non-compoundable offence. The high court in one of its judgements observed that while exercising its inherent power under Section 320 of Cr.P.C., it does not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The apex court had also permitted compounding of such offences in the decision of Nikhil Merchant v. CBI and another, (2008) 9 SCC 650 and the counsel of the parties pointed out the ruling of Hon’ble Apex Court in Gian Singh’s case.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. ApplicationNo.10521 With Compounding ApplicationTushar Prajapati ….. Applicant State of Uttarakhand and another ….Respondents Mr. Bhuwan Bhatt learned counsel for the applicant. Mrs. Manisha Rana Singh learned AGA for the State. Mr. Hemant Pant learned counsel for respondent no.2. Hon’ble R.C. Khulbe J. This application is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the summoning order dated 23.01.2021 passed by the C.J.M. Dehradun in Crl. Case No.780 of 2021 under Sections 323 354 427 452 504 506 IPC along with a further prayer to quash the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case which are pending before the ACJM Dehradun. The above numbered compounding application has also been filed seeking to compound the offence between the parties on the basis of a compromise arrived at between them. Learned counsel for the State opposed the compounding application. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the offences punishable under Sections 323 354 427 504 and 506 IPC are compoundable offences whereas Section 452 IPC is a non compoundable offence. 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: “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 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 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 the criminal proceeding would or continuation of 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 case18.08.2021 