Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 402 (UTT)

Lakkha Ram v. State of Uttarakhand

2014-09-22

U.C.DHYANI

body2014
JUDGMENT U.C. Dhyani, J. 1. All the accused-appellants were convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months alongwith a fine of Rs. 500/- each under Section 323 IPC read with Section 34 IPC; 6 rigorous imprisonment for 6 months alongwith a fine of Rs. 1000/- each under Section 324 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for 2 years alongwith a fine of Rs. 2000/- each under Section 325 read with Section 34 IPC, vide judgment and order dated 08.07.2013 passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar in Sessions Trial no. 92 of 2008. It was directed that all the sentences shall run concurrently. The accused-appellants were, however, exonerated of the charge under Section 307 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. 2. Aggrieved against the conviction and sentence, present criminal appeal was preferred before this Court. 3. A Compounding Application (CRMA No. 1447 of 2014) is filed before this Court to show that the parties have settled their disputes amicably. The compounding application is supported by affidavits of all the appellants and victims/injured, i.e. Satnam Chandra and Milakh Raj. Both the victims/injured, i.e. Satnam Chandra and Milakh Raj are present in person, duly identified by their counsel Mr. Bhupendra Koranga. Appellant no. 1 Lakkha Ram is also present in person before this Court, duly identified by his counsel Mr. Lokendra Dobhal. The victims stated before this Court that they do not wish to prosecute the appellants, in as much as, a compromise has taken place between them with the intervention of elderly persons of their village. They prayed that they may be permitted to compound the proved offences proved against the appellants and the criminal appeal be allowed. 4. Offences punishable under Sections 323 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and Section 325 IPC read with Section 34 IPC are compoundable within the scheme of Section 320 Cr. P.C. while the offence under Section 324 IPC read with Section 34 IPC is non-compoundable offence. The question is – whether the victims/injured should be permitted to compound such proved offences against the convicts or not? 5. P.C. while the offence under Section 324 IPC read with Section 34 IPC is non-compoundable offence. The question is – whether the victims/injured should be permitted to compound such proved offences against the convicts or not? 5. 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 vs. 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.” 6. 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. 7. Learned counsel for the parties drew attention of this Court towards the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Narendra Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another, (2014) 6 SCC 466 . 8. Reliance was also placed upon the pronouncement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another, (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 160, wherein Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as below:- “The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarized 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 of 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. (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 of 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 statues 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 proceedings 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 questions is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.” 9. It will be useful to reproduce herein Sub-Section (5) of Section 320 Cr. P.C. as follows:- “320 (5) - When the accused has been committed for trial or when he has been convicted and an appeal is pending, no composition for the offence shall be allowed without the leave of the Court to which he is committed, or, as the case may be, before which the appeal is to be heard.” 10. Since the criminal appeal is pending before this Court against the conviction of the accused-appellants, therefore, the victims are seeking leave of this Court to permit them to compound the offences, for which the accused-appellants have been convicted. Sub-Section (5) of Section 320 Cr. P.C. is meant for those offences, which are compoundable offences within the Scheme of Section 320 Cr. P.C. 11. It is the submission of learned counsel for the parties that the alleged incident took place on 26.06.2007 and Section 324 IPC was declared as non-compoundable offence w.e.f. 31.12.2009 and in this way, it will be deemed as if Section 324 IPC was also compoundable offence within the scheme of Section 320 Cr. P.C. The offences punishable under Section 323 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and Section 325 IPC read with Section 34 IPC were and are, compoundable offences with the scheme of Section 320 Cr. P.C. 12. Since the victims/injured have buried all their differences against the appellants/ convicts, therefore, they should be permitted to compound such offences proved against the appellants in order to maintain peace in the society and to secure the ends of justice. 13. Compounding Application is allowed in the interest of justice. As a consequence thereof, the Criminal Appeal is allowed on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties. The impugned judgment and order convicting and sentencing the appellants is set-aside. The conviction and sentence awarded to the appellants are set aside. 14. Let the Lower Court Record be sent back to the court concerned.