R.C. Khulbe, J
1. By way of present application, moved under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. the applicants seek to quash charge sheet dated 16.03.2019, summoning order
dated 04.05.2019 and entire proceedings of criminal case no.1877 of 2019 (FIR No.33 of 2019), State Vs. Dayakishan Pandey & others, under
Sections 332, 353, 427, 504 and 506 IPC, P.S. Mukhani, Haldwani, District-Nainital pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Haldwani, District-
Nainital in terms of compromise arrived between the parties.
2. After perusal of the record, it would reveal that respondent no.3 got lodged an FIR against the applicants for the offences punishable under Sections
332, 353, 427, 504 and 506 IPC at P.S. Mukhani, Haldwani, District-Nainital. The learned trial Court took cognizance and summoned the applicants to
face the trial.
3. The parties have filed a Compounding Application no. 2806 of 2019 to show that the parties have buried their differences and have settled their
disputes amicably.
4. It is contended by learned counsel for the State that the offences punishable under Sections 332 and 353 IPC are non-compoundable offences.
5. 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. 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€
6. Parties are present before this Court and duly identified by their respective counsel.
7. Considering the fact that the offences punishable under Sections 332 and 353 IPC are non-compoundable offences and also the fact that
complainant has filed an affidavit stating that the matter has been settled amicably between the parties, it would be just and appropriate to allow the
present compounding applications in the interest of justice.
8. Accordingly, the compounding application is allowed. The entire proceedings of criminal case no.1877 of 2019 (FIR No.33 of 2019), State Vs.
Dayakishan Pandey & others, under Sections 332, 353, 427, 504 and 506 IPC, P.S. Mukhani, Haldwani, District-Nainital pending in the court of
Judicial Magistrate, Haldwani, District-Nainital along with charge sheet dated 16.03.2019 and summoning order dated 04.05.2019 is hereby quashed,
qua the present applicants only, on the basis of compromise arrived between the parties.
9. Present C482 application stands disposed of, as above.
10. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.
