Kishan Kumar And Ors vs Mr. Shailesh Pandey Advocate for the Applicants.

been moved on behalf of the parties seeking to compound the offences relating to Charge-Sheet No.01/2022 dated

22.11.2022 (FIR No.370 of 2022) u/s 147, 148, 149, 506, 307, 326, 504 and 34 IPC. They have also challenged the summoning order dated 24.02.2023 passed by the Court of J.M. Kichha, U.S. Nagar in Crl. Case No.192 of 2023 (New No.1667 of 2023) State v. Kishan Kumar and others. Along with the compounding application, respective affidavits of all the parties have been filed.

3. The ground for seeking compounding of offences is that parties have reached to the terms of compromise wherefor a settlement has also reached between them. It is thus, prayed that the present 1 proceedings between the parties may be quashed in terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties.

4. Learned State Counsel objected compounding application arguing that the case is a serious one as it relates to the offence inter alia Section 307 IPC.

5. Applicants as well as respondent nos.4 and 5 are present in the Court being duly identified by their respective counsel.

6. The Court also had an interaction with the injured-respondent no.5 (Vikas Gupta) about compromise, to which, he fairly conceded that he has no objection if compounding application is allowed.

7. However, considering the fact that it is an offence against the Society, and due to the present FIR, the entire State machinery was set into motion, this Court is of the view that the interest of justice would be met if an amount of Rs.10,000/- is imposed against each of the applicants to be deposited within two weeks from today.

8. 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.”

9. 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 2 affect the powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

10. Further, the Apex Court has permitted compounding of such offences in the case of Nikhil Merchant v. CBI and another, (2008) 9 SCC 650.

11. 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.”

12. Since the parties have reached to the terms of the compromise, this Court is of the firm opinion that there would 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

13. Accordingly, compounding application (IA/1/2024) is hereby allowed. The compromise arrived at between the parties is accepted. With the result, the entire proceedings [Crl. Complaint Case No.192 of 2023, State v. Kishan Kumar and others) [New No.1667 of 2023], pending between the parties before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Kichha (District U.S. Nagar)], pursuant to Charge-Sheet No.01/2022 dated 22.11.2022 (FIR No.370 of 2022) for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 506, 307, 326, 504 and 34 IPC, are hereby quashed.

14. The aforesaid compromise is permitted to be allowed provided the applicants shall deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- each (Rs.50,000/- in total) before the Uttarakhand High Court Bar Association Advocates’ Welfare Fund, within two weeks from today. In case of default, this order shall be deemed to be otiose.

15. Present C482 application, along with all other pending applications, stands disposed of accordingly. R.Dang (Pankaj Purohit, J.)

27.02.2025 4