Rankit Kumar Mangwana vs State of U.P. and Others

Umesh Chandra Dhyani, J.—The applicant, by means of present application under section 482 Cr.P.C., seeks to quash the summoning order dated 11.11.2014 passed in Case Crime No. 122 of 2014, under sections 363, 366 and 376 of IPC and section 3/4 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, pending in the Court of Sessions Judge, Nainital. A first information report was lodged by father, of the girl against the accused-applicant for the offences punishable under sections 363 and 366 of IPC After the investigation of the case, a charge-sheet for the offences punishable under sections 363, 366, 376 of IPC and section 3/4 of The Protection of Children form Sexual Offences Act, 2012 was filed against the applicant.

Now learned Counsel for the parties pray for quashing the charge-sheet on the ground that father of the victim is no more interested in prosecuting the accused-applicant. An affidavit has been filed by the informant (father of the victim) to this effect. Victim Vaishali is present in person before the Court, duly identified by her Counsel Ms. Chhavi Tomar, Advocate. She says that she has married to the accused on her own volition. Some photographs have been filed by the parties to indicate the same. She has also filed her high school certificate, which shows the date of birth of the victim as 12.8.1998. By that analogy, she is about 16 years as on date.

This Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C., is not inclined to permit the informant or the victim to compound the offences alleged against the applicant. It will be against the public policy if such permission is granted. The Hon''ble Apex Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another, , has also observed that compounding of such of fences should not be allowed by the High Courts. The observations made by the Hon''ble Apex Court are being quoted herein below for reference:--

"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 3 victim''s family and the offender have settled the 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 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 predominatingly 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."

(Emphasis supplied)

This Court is conscious of the fate of the Sessions Trial pending against the accused-applicant in the Court of Sessions Judge, Nainital. The writing is on the wall. But then, since the compounding of such offences is not permissible, therefore, this Court cannot allow the application under section 482 Cr.P.C. As a consequence thereof, the same is hereby dismissed. The Sessions Judge, Nainital is, however, requested to conclude the trial at the earliest, keeping in view the recent amendments made in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.