Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 535 (UTT)

Pankaj Singh v. State of Uttarakhand

2016-08-31

SERVESH KUMAR GUPTA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Mr. G.C. Kandpal and Mr. Bhupendra Prasad, Advocates, for the accused applicant. Mr. Vinod Kumar Gemini, Dy. Advocate General, for the State/respondent no. 1. Mr. J.C. Karnatak, Advocate, for the complainant/respondent no. 2. Heard. This petition under Section 482 CrPC has been filed with the prayer to quash the ongoing proceedings in Criminal Case No. 612/2012, State v. Pankaj Singh & Another, under Section 420, 467 & 468 IPC, pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar. Charge-sheet was submitted way back in the year 2004 and cognisance was taken immediately thereafter. Since then such case is pending and kept on transferred in different courts and now, it is pending in the aforementioned Court as Criminal Case No. 612/2012. Incident had occurred on 24.3.2004 and 26.3.2004. Backside of the charge-sheet reveals that a number of witnesses have been examined. Now, both parties have filed compounding application (CRMA 1095/2015) with request to quash the proceedings. When the Magistrate refused to discharge the accused persons, a revision was filed in the Court of Sessions Judge and that too, after hearing the revisionist accused, was dismissed at the threshold on 8.12.2014 vide a detailed judgment. This C482 petition is not at all maintainable in view of the law laid down by a Full Bench of Allahabad High Court, Father Thomas v. State of U.P. & Another, 2011 CRI. L.J. 2278. As regards compounding of the matter, the law has been elaborately laid down by a Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Apex Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Another, (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 160. Such precedent has recently been relied upon by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Manish & Others, 2015 (4) Crimes 115. It was held therein that where inherent powers of High Court under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings involving non-compoundable offences in view of compromise arrived at between the parties are to be exercised, social impact of crime in question vis-à-vis its individual impact is the decisive criterion for exercise of quashment power in such cases. When the offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society, then the proceedings cannot be quashed. I think that looking to the allegations of the First Information Report and thereafter submission of the charge-sheet, which has almost culminated into full trial, the matter cannot be compounded now. When the offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society, then the proceedings cannot be quashed. I think that looking to the allegations of the First Information Report and thereafter submission of the charge-sheet, which has almost culminated into full trial, the matter cannot be compounded now. Compounding application is hereby rejected and the instant petition stands dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. Inform the court concerned accordingly.