Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1285 (HP)

State Of Himachal Pradesh v. Anil Kumar

2018-07-12

VIVEK SINGH THAKUR

body2018
JUDGMENT Vivek Singh Thakur, J. - This appeal preferred by the State of Himachal Pradesh, against acquittal of respondents No.1 & 2, stands allowed vide judgment dated 05.05.2018, passed by this Court and both the respondents have been convicted under Sections 323, 451 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and the long gap between the incident and conviction of respondents, it was deemed appropriate this Court to extend benefit of Probation of Offenders Act to the respondents instead of imposing substantial sentence. Therefore, report of Probation Officer was called upon. 2. During interregnum, complainant-injured Kamla Devi, has preferred an application, i.e. Cr.MP No.887 of 2018, seeking permission to compound the matter with the respondents for the reason that the complainant and respondents are inhabitants of one and same village and as respondents in village relation are maternal grandsons of complainant and they are sons of a daughter of village, i.e. niece of complainant in relation as villagers, and now both the families are living peacefully as dispute between them stands settled completely and the families are not only maintaining good relations but also attending functions of each-other without any ill-will with peaceful and cordial atmosphere after forgetting the bitterness of the past and thus, complainant-injured does not want to pursue the matter any further and instead of sentencing the respondents, she is interested for compounding the matter to continue the peaceful relations between the parties. 3. Statement of complainant Kamla Devi and joint statement of respondents-accused have also been recorded on oath in the Court. The complainant has endorsed the contents of the application and for undertaking of respondents not to repeat such incident she has reasserted the prayer for permission to compound the matter, whereas respondents have also admitted the incident and have further stated that now matter has been settled amicably with the complainant and they have undertaken not to involve in such activities in future and not to harm the complainant and her family members and also that the complainant, who is their maternal grandmother in village relation, has also pardoned them and has agreed to compound the matter. 4. The respondents have been convicted under Sections 323, 451, 506 read with Section 34 IPC. 4. The respondents have been convicted under Sections 323, 451, 506 read with Section 34 IPC. All these offences are compoundable under Section 320(1) of Cr.P.C., without leave of the Court, by the person to whom the hurt is caused under Section 323 IPC, the person in possession of the house trespassed upon under Section 451 IPC and person intimidated under Section 506 IPC. 5. In present case, the complainant Kamla Devi is person to whom hurt is caused and she was the person in possession of the house trespassed upon and she is the person intimidated. Therefore, the offence involved was compoundable without leave of the Court at an initial stage or at the time when respondents were enjoying acquittal. But now, respondents stand convicted by this Court. In such a situation, Section 320 (5) Cr.P.C. shall be relevant, wherein it is provided that when the accused has been convicted and the appeal is pending, no composition for the offence is allowed without leave of the Court before which the appeal is to be heard. In present case, the respondents stand convicted by this Court, but the appeal is yet pending adjudication before this Court for considering the quantum of sentence or extension of benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. Therefore, appeal cannot be termed as to have been decided finally. 6. Even, otherwise, three Judges Bench of Hon''ble Apex Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and Ors. , (2012) 10 SCC 303 , explaining that High Court has inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with no statutory limitation including Section 320 Cr.P.C., has held that these powers are to be exercised to secure the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process of any Court and these powers can be exercised to quash criminal proceedings or complaint or FIR in appropriate cases where offender and victim have settled their dispute and for that purpose no definite category of offence can be prescribed. However, it is also observed that Courts must have due regard to nature and gravity of the crime and criminal proceedings in heinous and serious offences or offence like murder, rape and dacoity etc. should not be quashed despite victim or victim family have settled the dispute with offender. However, it is also observed that Courts must have due regard to nature and gravity of the crime and criminal proceedings in heinous and serious offences or offence like murder, rape and dacoity etc. should not be quashed despite victim or victim family have settled the dispute with offender. Jurisdiction vested in High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is held to be exercisable for quashing criminal proceedings in cases having overwhelming and predominatingly civil flavour particularly offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil partnership, or such like transactions, or even offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry etc., family disputes or other such disputes where wrong is basically private or personal nature where parties mutually resolve their dispute amicably. It was also held that no category or cases for this purpose could be prescribed and each case has to be dealt with on its own merit but it is also clarified that this power does not extend to crimes against society. 7. Hon''ble Supreme Court, in case Narinder Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab and Ors. , (2014) 6 SCC 466 , has sum up and laid down principles, by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercise its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings of refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with criminal proceedings. 8. Even if, it considered that after pronouncement of judgment of conviction, the appeal stands allowed, even then, as explained by Hon''ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh''s and Narinder Singh''s case supra , power of High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not inhibited by the provisions of Section 320 Cr.P.C. and compounding can be permitted at this stage by exercising inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., if warranted in given facts and circumstances of the case for ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court like present one where parties have settled the matter between themselves. 9. 9. Offences in question do not fall in the category of offences termed to be prohibited, in the pronouncements of Apex Court for composition exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In view of the statements of complainant and respondents, recorded on oath in this Court and also application filed by complainant, seeking leave of the Court for compounding the matter, the respondents deserves to be acquitted. 10. Keeping in view the provision of the law, exposition thereof by the Apex Court and considering facts and circumstances of the case in its entirety, the application Cr.MP No.887 of 2018 is allowed and resultantly, the matter is permitted to be compounded. Consequently, as provided under Section 320(8) Cr.P.C., the respondents are acquitted, in case FIR No.6 of 2006, dated 21st January, 2006, registered under Sections 323, 451, 506 read with Section 34 IPC, at Police Station, Rajgarh, Distt. Sirmour (H.P.). Appeal alongwith pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of in aforesaid terms.