SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Manvendra Singh & Another … vs State Of Uttarakhand & Another on 20 August, 2019


Crl. Misc. Application (C-482) No.1589 of 2019


Compounding Application (CRMA No.2326 of 2019)

Manvendra Singh another ….Applicants


State of Uttarakhand another …. Respondents

Mr. Niranjan Bhatt, learned Advocate for the applicants.
Ms. Preeta Bhatt, learned Brief Holder for the State.
Mr. V.P. Bahuguna, learned Advocate for respondent no.2.

Hon’ble R.C. Khulbe, J.

By way of present application, moved
under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. the applicants seek
to quash the impugned charge sheet dated
07.07.2018, summoning order dated 22.06.2019
and entire proceedings of criminal case no.3410
of 2019 (case crime no.293/2017), under Sections
354, Section323, Section504, Section506 IPC, P.S. Kotwali, Dehradun
pending in before Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Dehradun in terms of compromise arrived
between the parties.

2. After perusal of the FIR, it would reveal
that respondent no.2 lodged FIR on 18.06.2017 at
P.S. Kotwali, Dehradun with the allegation that on
17.06.2017 the applicant along with other
unknown persons entered to the house of
complainant and abused and assaulted her and
her family members.


3. The parties have filed a Compounding
Application no. 2326 of 2019 to show that the
parties have buried their differences and have
settled their disputes amicably

4. It is further contended that the offence
punishable under Section 354 IPC is a non-
compoundable offence.

5. Learned counsel for the parties also
drew the attention of this Court towards the
ruling of SectionGian 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 SectionPrevention 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

6. Parties are present in the Court today
and they are duly identified by their respective

7. Considering the fact that the offence
punishable under Section 354 IPC is a non-
compoundable offence 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.3410 of 2019 (case crime
no.293/2017), under Sections 354, Section323, Section504, Section506
IPC, P.S. Kotwali, Dehradun pending in before
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun along with
impugned charge sheet dated 07.07.2018 and
summoning order dated 22.06.2019 is hereby
quashed, qua the applicants, on the basis of
compromise arrived among the parties.

9. Present C482 application stands
disposed of, as above.

10. Pending applications, if any, also stand
disposed of accordingly.

(R.C. Khulbe, J.)
Dt. August 20, 2019


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation