Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 62 (UTT)

Apoorv Khanna v. State of Uttarakhand

2016-02-04

U.C.DHYANI

body2016
JUDGMENT : U.C. Dhyani, J. 1. Applicant no. 1 (Apoorv Khanna) was convicted for an offence punishable under Section 354 read with Section 109 of IPC and was directed to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs.2,000/-. Co-accused/co-applicant (Jagmohan) who was convicted under Section 354 IPC was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years alongwith a fine of Rs.2,000/- by the trial court. A criminal appeal against such conviction is pending before the learned Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar. 2. In the meanwhile, amicable settlement has taken place between the parties, and therefore, a compounding application has been filed. 3. Both the accused/applicants are present in person before this Court and duly identified by Mr. G.C. Lakhchura, Advocate. Victim/respondent no. 2 is present in person before this Court and duly identified by her counsel Mr. C.K. Sharma and Mr. Rajesh Sharma. She says that she is not interested in prosecuting the applicants and she wants that they should not be put behind the bars. 4. Applicant no. 1 is her ex-husband. In other words, she is legally divorced wife of applicant no. 1. 5. Applicant no. 2 is the compounder in the nursing home of the father of applicant no. 1. 6. The question which arises for consideration before this Court is whether, after conviction, the victim (respondent no. 2) should be permitted to compound the offences proved against the applicants or not? 7. The Hon’ble Apex Court in hosts of decisions including Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another, (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 160, Dimpy Gujral vs. Union Territory through Administrator U.T. Chandigarh and others, [2013 (123) AIC 119 (S.C.)], Narendra Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another, reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 and Nikhil Merchant vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2008) 9 SCC 667 has held that even a non-compoundable offence may be permitted to be compounded by the Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. 8. 8. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another, (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 160 has observed as under:- “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. 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. 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 is a case in which a criminal appeal against the conviction is pending before the learned Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar. Victim is ex-wife of applicant no. 1. The allegations are that the applicants outraged the modesty of respondent no. 2, who herself is not interested in prosecuting the applicants any more and wants that the applicants should not be sent to jail. 10. In such circumstances, the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Gian Singh (supra) and catena of judgments and decisions empower the Court under the jurisdiction of 482 CrPC to permit compounding of offences. 11. Considering the circumstances as narrated herein above, this Court is of the opinion that no fruitful purpose will be served by keeping the criminal appeal pending against the applicants before the learned Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar. In the wake of the fact that victim is not interested in prosecuting the applicants, she should therefore be permitted to compound the offences proved against the applicants. 12. She is permitted to compound the offences proved against the applicants. 13. Compounding application (CRMA No.137 of 2016) is allowed. 14. As a consequence, thereof, conviction awarded to the applicants by the trial court is set aside. 15. 12. She is permitted to compound the offences proved against the applicants. 13. Compounding application (CRMA No.137 of 2016) is allowed. 14. As a consequence, thereof, conviction awarded to the applicants by the trial court is set aside. 15. Let a copy of this order be sent to the learned Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar. 16. The criminal appeal pending before the said court is therefore, rendered infructuous inasmuch as compounding of offences has been permitted to respondent no. 2 against the applicants. 17. Urgency application (IA No.804 of 2016) stands disposed of accordingly.