Criminal Misc. Application No. 142 of 2017. Case: Surendra Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand and Ors.. Uttarakhand High Court

Case NumberCriminal Misc. Application No. 142 of 2017
CounselFor Appellant: Mani Kumar, Advocate and For Respondents: Milind Raj and Prem Kaushal, Brief Holders
JudgesUmesh Chandra Dhyani, J.
IssueCode of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) - Sections 320, 482; Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) - Sections 186, 504, 506
Judgement DateFebruary 01, 2017
CourtUttarakhand High Court


Umesh Chandra Dhyani, J.

  1. By means of present Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant seeks to quash the impugned chargesheet dated 19.10.2015, summoning order and proceedings of Criminal Case No. 2100/2016 State v. Surendra Singh @ Shinda under Sections 186, 504 and 506 of I.P.C, P.S. Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar, pending before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar.

  2. An affidavit has been filed by Dr. Lila Mehra/complainant to show that the parties have buried their differences and have settled their disputes amicably. Respondent No. 2 (Dr. Lila Mehra) is present in person, duly identified by her counsel Mr. Kishore Rai. She says that she has no grievance left against the applicant and she is not interested in prosecuting the applicant, inasmuch as the dispute has been settled amicably between the parties. Applicant Surendra Singh @ Shinda is also present in person duly identified by his counsel Mr. Mani Kumar, Advocate.

  3. Whereas offences punishable under Sections 504 & 506 IPC are compoundable offences within the Scheme of Section 320 Cr.P.C., offence punishable under Section 186 IPC is not compoundable. The question, which arises for consideration of this Court, is- whether the respondent No. 2 should be permitted to compound the offences alleged against the applicant or not?

  4. The Apex Court has dealt with the consequence of a compromise in regard to non-compoundable offences in the case of B.S. Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another, (2003)4 SCC 675 and has held as below:

    If for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necessary, Section 320 Cr.P.C. would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing. It is, however, a different matter depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case whether to exercise or not such a power.

    Thus, the High Court, in exercise of its inherent power can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and Section 320 of Cr.P.C. does not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

  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...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT