Aadil vs State Of Uttarakhand & Anr

R.C. Khulbe, J

By means of present writ petition, moved under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is praying for the quashing of the FIR dated

04.05.2021, registered as FIR No. 409 of 2021 under Sections 307, 504 and 506 IPC at P.S. Laksar District Hardiwar.

The above numbered compromise application has been filed on behalf of the parties with a prayer that the parties have buried their differences and

have settled their dispute amicably. The compromise is on the record, supported by an affidavit. Parties were present in the Court on 25.05.2021

through video conferencing.

It may be noted here that the offences punishable under Section 504 and 506 of IPC are compoundable offences with the permission of the Court

as provided under the scheme of Section 320 Cr.P.C., whereas Section 307 is a non compoundable offence.

Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in a catena of judgments that non-compoundable offences can be compounded on the basis of settlements

between private parties and on a compromise between the offender and the victim, and that Section 320 of Cr.P.C. would not be a bar for the purpose

of securing the ends of justice, where the dispute is purely personal in nature and does not cause any harm to the society. A reference may be made

to Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 160 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under:-

“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. 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 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.â€​

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 case (supra).

Having regard to the facts of the present case, while taking into account the settlement arrived at between the parties and also considering the

affidavits filed before this Court by the parties as well as in view of well-settled proposition of law, the application seeking permission to compound the

offences is allowed.

In view of the above, compromise application is allowed. As a consequence of the same, FIR dated 04.05.2021, registered as FIR No. 409 of 2021

under Sections 307, 504 and 506 IPC at P.S. Laksar District Hardiwar is hereby quashed on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.

The present criminal writ petition is thus disposed of.