Criminal Application No.5847 of 2014

24th November, 2014.

Petitioner Counsel: Mr. P.S. PAWAR
Respondent Counsel: Mr. S.G. KARLEKAR, Mr. K.J. TANDALE

Cases Cited:
P. Ramaswamy Vs. State(U.T.) of Andaman & Nicobar Islands, 2013 ALL SCR 2202=2013 CJ(SC)450 [Para 8]
Shiji @ Pappu & ors. Vs. Radhika & anr., 2011 ALL MR (Cri) 3915 (S.C.)=2011 CJ(SC) 239 [Para 9]
Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2013 ALL SCR 171 =2012 (10) SCC 303 [Para 10]

JUDGMENT

N. W. SAMBRE, J. :- Heard respective Counsel for the parties.

2. Upon complaint made by present applicant, an offence punishable under Sections 354 and 504 of Indian Penal Code is registered in M.I.D.C. Police Station, Ahmednagar, vide crime No. I-177/ 2014 against Non-Applicant Nos. 2 and 3.

3. All the parties to the application are personally present in the Court and are identified by their respective Counsel. The parties in vernacular states that, the contents of the compromise are understood by them and are drafted by their respective Counsel as per their instructions. Furthermore, Non-Applicants herein have undertaken that, they shall not repeat the similar conduct in future.

4. Proceedings were arising out of act of commission and omission on the part of Non-Applicants, resulting into registration of above referred offences.

5. Prima facie perusal of the F.I.R. does not satisfy the ingredients under Section 354 of I.P.C.

6. In addition to above, it is informed by the parties that, the Non-Applicants herein are students and are closely related to the complainant/applicant.

7. The present applicant and Non-Applicants Nos. 2 to 4, since are related to each other and according to them, no fruitful purpose will be served because of the ensuing prosecution in between them and to maintain peace and tranquility in the family relations, they have decided to settle the matter.

8. The attention of this Court is invited to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of P. Ramaswamy vs. State(U.T.) of Andaman & Nicobar Islands reported in 2013 CJ(SC)450 : [2013 ALL SCR 2202], wherein, the Apex Court has permitted the compounding of offence punishable under Section 354 of I.P.C. The Apex Court, while granting prayer for compounding, has considered that, the said prayer requires sympathetic consideration.

9. The Apex Court in the matter of Shiji @ Pappu & ors. vs. Radhika & anr. reported in 2011 CJ(SC) 239 : [2011 ALL MR (Cri) 3915 (S.C.)], has observed that, the High Court for the reasons to be recorded, is of the view that continuance of the prosecution would be nothing but an abuse of the process of law and with an intention to secure the ends of justice, may order compounding in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Apex Court, in the matter of Shiji @ Pappu and others, [2011 ALL MR (Cri) 3915 (S.C.)] (supra) having regard to the law on the aspect of Section 320 of the Criminal Procedure Code and powers to be exercised under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure, in paragraph-13 has observed thus:

"It is manifest that simply because an offence is not compoundable under Section 320 IPC is by itself no reason for the High Court to refuse exercise of its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. That power can in our opinion be exercised in cases where there is no chance of recording a conviction against the accused and the entire exercise of a trial is destined to be an exercise in futility. There is a subtle distinction between compounding of offences by the parties before the trial Court or in appeal on one hand and the exercise of power by the High Court to quash the prosecution under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on the other. While a Court trying an accused or hearing an appeal against conviction, may not be competent to permit compounding of an offence based on a settlement arrived at between the parties in cases where the offences are not compoundable under Section 320, the High Court may quash the prosecution even in cases where the offences with which the accused stand charged are non-compoundable. The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are not for that purpose controlled by Section 320 Cr.P.C. Having said so, we must hasten to add that the plenitude of the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by itself, makes it obligatory for the High Court to exercise the same with utmost care and caution. The width and the nature of the power itself demands that its exercise is sparing and only in cases where the High Court is, for reasons to be recorded, of the clear view that continuance of the prosecution would be nothing but an abuse of the process of law. It is neither necessary nor proper for us to enumerate the situations in which the exercise of power under Section 482 may be justified. All that we need to say is that the exercise of power must be for securing the ends of justice and only in cases where refusal to exercise that power may result in the abuse of the process of law. The High court may be justified in declining interference if it is called upon to appreciate evidence for it cannot assume the role of an appellate court while dealing with a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Subject to the above, the High Court will have to consider the facts and circumstances of each case to determine whether it is a fit case in which the inherent powers may be invoked."

10. The law laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of Gian Singh V/s. State of Punjab and another reported in 2012 (10) SCC Page 303 : [2013 ALL SCR 171], is also required to be taken note of. The Apex Court in paragraph-57 reads thus :

"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."

11. As such, it is noticed that, no fruitful purpose will be served in continuing the proceedings against Non-Applicants and continuation of such proceedings will be abuse of process of law.

12. Hence, in the interest of justice, it is necessary to allow the application. As such, for the reason stated herein above, present application is allowed and F.I.R. crime No. I-177/ 2014 registered in M.I.D.C. Police Station, Ahmednagar, for an offence punishable under Sections 354 and 504 of I.P.C. pursuant to complaint lodged by present applicant stands quashed and set aside.

13. Criminal Application stands allowed in above terms.

Application allowed.