Decided on October 18,2013

Naseem Ahemad and Ors. Appellant
State of Uttarakhand And Ors. Respondents


U.C. Dhyani, J. - (1.) THE petitioners, by means of present Criminal Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seek to quash the impugned F.I.R. registered as case crime No. 468 of 2012 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 & 471 IPC, Police Station Jwalapur, District Haridwar. An FIR was lodged by respondent No. 3 -Manish Kumar against 3 accused persons on 11.12.2012 in Police Station Jwalapur, Haridwar under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 & 471 IPC. During the course of investigation, 3 more names were added in the array of accused persons.
(2.) A Compounding Application (CRMA No. 11460 of 2013) is filed before this Court to show that the parties have settled their disputes amicably. Informant -respondent (Manish Kumar) is present in person, who is duly identified by his counsel Mr. Mohd. Allauddin. Some of the petitioners, namely, Naseem Ahemad, Dheer Singh, Vinay Kumar Sharma, Akash Kumar and Navneet Kumar are also present in person, who are duly identified by their counsel Mr. Manish Arora. Respondent No. 3 (informant) submitted that he does not wish to prosecute the petitioners, in as much as, a compromise has taken place between them. The respondent No. 3, therefore, prayed that the criminal writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India be allowed and the FIR alongwith the proceedings of the aforesaid case crime number be quashed. The permission can be granted to the informant to compound such offences in view of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in B. S. Joshi : (2003) 4 SCC 675 and Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 160. In Gian Singh's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as follows: - - The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarized 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; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint of 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 statues 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 proceedings 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.
(3.) SINCE the informant/cheated person has buried all his differences against the petitioners, therefore, he should be permitted to compound such offences against the petitioners in the interest of justice. Compounding Application (CRMA No. 11460/2013) is allowed in the interest of justice. As a consequence thereof, criminal writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is allowed and the FIR alongwith the proceedings of case crime No. 468 of 2012 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 & 471 IPC, Police Station Jwalapur, District Haridwar are hereby quashed.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.