State of Uttarakhand v. Sajid and Others, under Sections

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2. By means of the present C482 application, the applicant has put to challenge the Charge Sheet dated

09.10.2022, summoning order dated 21.12.2022 passed learned Additional Judicial Magistrate First, Dehradun, in Criminal Case No.8606 of 2022 State of Uttarakhand Vs. Sajid and Others, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 406, 323, 504 and 506 IPC, as well as the entire proceedings of aforementioned Criminal Case.

3. Along with present criminal writ petition, a joint compounding application (IA/2/2023) is filed and signed duly supported by separate affidavits by applicants and respondent No.2.

4. In the compounding application, it has been stated by the parties that the parties have reached to the terms of compromise wherefor a settlement has also reached between them as the applicants have returned the money under dispute i.e. Rs.5,05,000/- to the 1 respondent No.2 through RTGS No.BARBR52022071900 820467 amounting Rs.2,55,000/- and the remaining payment of Rs.2,50,000/- through RTGS No.BARB 52022071900820497 on 19.07.2022 in her bank account. It is thus, prayed that the present first information report be quashed terms of compromise arrived at between the parties.

5. Applicants-Sajid, Javed, Mehboob and Abdul Azeem are present before this Court, while respondent No.2-Smt. Noor Parveen was present through V.C. Both the parties are being duly identified by their respective counsel. On interaction, respondent No.2 stated that the applicants and she now have no differences as the applicants have returned the money under dispute therefore, she doesn’t want to prosecute the above case against the applicants in view of the amicable settlement arrived between them. She fairly conceded that she has no objection if compounding application is allowed.

6. Learned State Counsel raised a preliminary objection to the effect that the offences under Sections 467, 468 and 471 IPC sought to be compounded, are non-compoundable.

7. So far as compounding of non-compoundable offence is concerned, the Apex Court has dealt with the consequence of a compromise in this regard in the case of B.S. Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana and another, reported in (2003)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.”

8. Thus, the High Court, in exercise of its inherent power can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or 2 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.

9. Learned counsel for the parties also drew the attention of this Court towards the ruling of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another, (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 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; (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. ………………… 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.”

10. Since the parties have reached to the terms of the compromise, this Court is of the firm opinion that there would remain a remote or bleak possibility of conviction in this case. It can also safely be inferred that it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to permit continuation of the criminal proceedings. Since the answer to the aforesaid points is in affirmative, this Court finds it a fit case to permit the parties to compound the matter. 3

11. Accordingly, compounding application (IA/2/ 2023) is hereby allowed. The compromise arrived at between the parties is accepted. The entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 8606 of 2022 State of Uttarakhand Vs. Sajid and Others, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 406, 323, 504 and 506 IPC, pending in the Court of learned Additional Judicial Magistrate First, Dehradun, is hereby quashed. Resultantly, the Charge Sheet dated

09.10.2022, stands quashed.

12. Present C482 application stands allowed accordingly. PN (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 05.04.2025 4