Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 474 (UTT)

BOOTA SINGH v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2017-09-01

U.C.DHYANI

body2017
JUDGMENT U.C. Dhyani, J. (Oral) Charge sheet has been filed against the applicant for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506, 376 IPC. 2. Accused-applicant Boota Singh is present in person before the Court, duly identified by his counsel Mr. G.C. Lakhchaura, Advocate. Complainant-respondent no. 2 Smt. Nirmal Kaur as well as Manjeet Kaur (first wife of the applicant) are also present in person before the Court, duly identified by their counsel Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma, Advocate. 3. The complainant-respondent no. 2 stated that she has no grievance left against the applicant, inasmuch as she is now living with him as his wife. Accused-applicant Boota Singh admits that victim-respondent no. 2 Nirmal Kaur is his wife. Manjeet Kaur, first wife of applicant Boota Singh, also says that she does not want prosecution of her husband. In response to a query of the Court, Boota Singh, Nirmal Kaur and Manjeet Kaur stated that since the husband of Nirmal Kaur had died, therefore, as per local customs, Nirmal Kaur is living with her brother-in-law Boota Singh, as his wife. 4. Parties have, therefore, filed compounding application, being CRMA no. 1527 of 2017, but this Court is afraid that it cannot permit compounding of such offences, which have been complained of against the applicant, in view of decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 160. Compounding application is, therefore, dismissed. 5. At this stage of dictation, learned counsel for the applicant prayed that some time be granted to the applicant to surrender before the Magistrate concerned and a direction be given that the bail application of the applicant be decided as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law, considering the facts narrated here-in-above. Such prayer is not opposed by Mr. S.S. Adhikari, A.G.A. for the respondent State and Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for complainant-respondent no. 2. 6. Four weeks' time is granted to the applicant to surrender before the Magistrate concerned, where after he will be dealt with by the court having jurisdiction, in accordance with law. No coercive measures shall be taken against the applicant for a period of four weeks from today. If the applicant surrenders before learned Magistrate within the stipulated time and seeks bail, his bail application shall be decided as expeditiously as possible, without unreasonable delay, as per law. 7. No coercive measures shall be taken against the applicant for a period of four weeks from today. If the applicant surrenders before learned Magistrate within the stipulated time and seeks bail, his bail application shall be decided as expeditiously as possible, without unreasonable delay, as per law. 7. If it is not possible for the learned Magistrate to grant bail to the applicant, then he should reject the bail application on the same day. Subject to rejection of bail application, if the applicant moves bail application before the learned Sessions Judge, then it is directed that the bail application shall be decided as expeditiously as possible, without unreasonable delay, in accordance with law, keeping in view the facts narrated here-in-above. 8. With the direction as above, application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. stands disposed of.