Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 138 (UTT)

HARKISHAN v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2014-03-28

U.C.DHYANI

body2014
JUDGMENT U.C. Dhyani, J. (Oral) 1. Accused Harkishan and three others were convicted of the offences punishable under Sections 326 and 506 of IPC. Co-accused persons Ram Chandra, Ashok and Gangaram were convicted of the offences punishable under Sections 323, 325 and 506 of IPC. All the four convicts were sentenced appropriately by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)/ Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, vide judgment and order dated 04.08.2006. 2. Aggrieved against their conviction and sentences, criminal appeal was preferred by the convicts, which criminal was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kashipur (Udham Singh Nagar), vide judgment and order dated 21.12.2011. Aggrieved against the confirmation of conviction and sentences, present Criminal Revision was preferred by the convicts. 3. A compounding application being CRMA No. 372 of 2014 has been filed by the parties to indicate that they have buried their differences and have settled the dispute amicably. Injured Bhura has filed an affidavit for seeking the permission to compound the offences against the convicts. Injured Bhura is present in person before the Court, duly identified by his counsel Mr. Deep Joshi, Advocate, who says that he has no grievance against the revisionists, in as much as, they are now living peacefully and have maintained cordial relations with each other. An affidavit is also filed by one of the accused, namely, Harkishan (revisionist no. 1) in support of the statement of the injured. 4. All the accused are also present in person before the Court along with the injured. Offences punishable under Sections 323, 325 and 506 of IPC are compoundable offences within the scheme of Section 320 of Cr.P.C. Offence punishable under Section 326 IPC is a non-compoundable offence. The same entails punishment with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, along with fine. The question is – whether the victim should be permitted to compound the offences under Sections 323, 325, 326 and 506 of IPC against the applicants/revisionists or not? 5. The same entails punishment with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, along with fine. The question is – whether the victim should be permitted to compound the offences under Sections 323, 325, 326 and 506 of IPC against the applicants/revisionists or not? 5. Learned counsel for the revisionists 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. 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.” 6. The instant case is squarely covered by the said ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The obvious reply to the question posed above is in the affirmative in view of the ruling of Hon’ble Apex Court in Gian Singh’s case (supra). Hon’ble Apex Court also permitted compounding of offence punishable under Section 307 IPC in the case of Dimpy Gujral vs. Union Territory though Administrator U.T. Chandigarh and others, [2013 (123) AIC 119 (S.C.)]. 7. Compounding Application is thus allowed. As a consequence of the same, the conviction and sentences awarded to the convicts (revisionists herein) are set aside on the basis of compromise between the parties. 8. Criminal Revision is thus disposed of in terms of compromise arrived at between the parties.