The High Court
Case Details
. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.971 of 2024 Narendra Ranasingh …. Petitioner Mr. B.P. Rath, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & others …. Opp. Party
Legal Reasoning
Mr. P.K. Maharaj, Additional Standing Counsel. CORAM: JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA Order No.
Decision
ORDER 15.04.2024 01. 1. Heard. 2. At the instance of the opposite party no.2, the F.I.R., i.e., Balugaon P.S. Case No.106 of 2011 came to be registered against the petitioner under Sections 341/354/294/506/509 of the I.P.C. pending in the Court of learned J.M.F.C., Chilika. 3. The allegation against the petitioner in the F.I.R. is that on 31.07.2011, the petitioner embarrass the opposite party no.3 lifted her in an auto by threatening not to shout and in the same time passersby had intervened and rescued the opposite party no.3. On the aforementioned, F.I.R. was lodged against the // 2 // petitioner. 4. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed on 01.08.2011 and the Court below had taken cognizance on 24.03.2023. While the matter stood thus, the parties have settled their disputes and they have filed separate compromise affidavit dated 15.04.2024 which are taken on record. In the said affidavit the opposite party nos.2 & 3 inter alia stated that on the interventation of the elders and the family members the matter has been amicably settled. Therefore, they do not want to proceed against the petitioner. 5. The petitioner and opposite party nos.2 & 3 are present in person along with their respective counsel and filed their self attested photocopies of their respective Adhar Cards to establishment their identity. The same are taken on record. 6. Mr. Maharaj, learned Additional Standing Counsel submits that since the parties have settled their dispute and they have filed compromise affidavits before this Court, in this regard, there is no legal impediment. 7. Taking into consideration the aforementioned facts, submission at bar and in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another reported in 2012 (10) SCC 303, this case deserves merit. Relevant Paragraphs of the Gian Singh ( supra) relevant to the facts scenario of this case reads as under: “52. The question is with regard to the inherent power of the High Court in quashing Page 2 of 6 // 3 // the criminal proceedings against an offender who has settled his dispute with the victim of the crime but the crime in which he is allegedly involved is not compoundable under Section 320 of the Code. 55. In the very nature of its constitution, it is the judicial obligation of the High Court to undo a wrong in course of administration of justice or to prevent continuation of unnecessary judicial process. This is founded on the legal maxim quando lex aliquid alicui concedit, conceditur et id sine qua res ipsa esse non potest. The full import of which is whenever anything is authorised, and especially if, as a matter of duty, required to be done by law, it is found impossible to do that thing unless something else not authorised in express terms be also done, may also be done, then that something else will be supplied by necessary intendment. Ex debito justitiae is inbuilt in such exercise; the whole idea is to do real, complete and substantial justice for which it exists. The power possessed by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code is of wide amplitude but requires exercise with great caution and circumspection. 58. Where High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that dispute between the offender and victim has been settled although offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. No doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful effect on the public and consist in wrong doing that seriously endangers and threatens well-being of society Page 3 of 6 // 4 // offences certain and it is not safe to leave the crime- doer only because he and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the victim has been paid compensation, yet certain crimes have been made compoundable in law, with or without permission of the Court. In respect of serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc; or other offences of mental depravity under IPC or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between offender and victim can have no legal sanction at all. which However, overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to victim and the offender and victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or F.I.R if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated. The above list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Each case will depend on its own facts and no hard and fast category can be prescribed. 61. 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 Page 4 of 6 // 5 // 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 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, 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 mercantile, financial, Page 5 of 6 // 6 // 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.” 8. In the light of the above considerations, the F.I.R., i.e., Balugaon P.S. Case No.106 of 2011 pending in the Court of learned J.M.F.C., Chilika and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua the petitioner are quashed. 9. The CRLMC is accordingly disposed of. amit Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AMIT KUMAR MOHANTY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 16-Apr-2024 17:57:26 (S.S. Mishra) Judge Page 6 of 6