Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 61 (UTT)

Roshan Lal v. State of Uttarakhand

2019-02-04

SHARAD KUMAR SHARMA

body2019
JUDGMENT : Sharad Kumar Sharma, J. The applicants are an accused for commission of an offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 504 & 506 of I.P.C., registered at Police Station Bazpur, District Udham Singh Nagar as F.I.R. No. 241 of 2014 dated 01.10.2014 was registered against them. On an investigation being completed, a charge sheet has been submitted against the applicants being charge sheet no. 11/15 dated 04.02.2015, based on the said charge sheet, a Criminal Case no. 2869 of 2015, “State Vs. Roshan Lal and others”, was registered before learned Judicial Magistrate, Bazpur, District Udham Singh Nagar, who had issued impugned summoning/ cognizance order dated 21.09.2015 under Section 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 504 and 506 of IPC. It is the charge sheet dated 04.02.2015, as well as summoning order dated 21.09.2015 and proceeding of Criminal Case No. 2869 of 2015 State Vs. Roshan Lal and others itself, which has been put to challenge in the present C482 application praying for following relief (s) :- “It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court graciously be pleased to allow the present criminal miscellaneous application and quash and set aside the charge sheet dated 04.02.2015 as well as impugned cognizance/summoning order dated 21.09.2015 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar in criminal case no.2869 of 2015 State Vs. Roshan Lal and others”, for the offences punishable under Section 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 504 & 506 of I.P.C., P.S. Bazpur, District Udham Singh Nagar, in terms of compromise arrived between the parties, failing which the applicants shall suffer irreparable loss and injury.” 2. The learned Government Advocate had raised an objection to the effect that the offence sought to be compounded in particular the offence under Section 324 of IPC would not be compoundable by invoking the provisions contained under Section 320 of CrPC. In answer to it, the learned counsel for the applicants submits that though the offence under Section 324 of IPC may not be compoundable but owing to the provisions as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgment reported in 2002 (10) SCC page 313 “Bachhu Singh @ Surendra Babu and others Vs. In answer to it, the learned counsel for the applicants submits that though the offence under Section 324 of IPC may not be compoundable but owing to the provisions as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgment reported in 2002 (10) SCC page 313 “Bachhu Singh @ Surendra Babu and others Vs. State of U.P.” Even the offence under Sections 324/149 of IPC and under Section 323, 149 and 148 of IPC has been held out to be compoundable on the basis of amicable settlement which has been held between the parties. Similarly, he has also place reliance on the judgment reported in 2014 (9) SCC 653 “Yogendra Yadav Vs. State of Jharkhand” wherein while considering the ambit of powers of the Superior Courts under Section 482 CrPC read with 320 of the CrPC. The issue pertaining to the compounding of an offence which are not compoundable on the basis of the compromise, it had held that the non compoundable offence too would depend upon the facts of the each case, only an exception which has been carved out is to the dispute which have a moral turpitude, grave offences like rape, murder etc. It has rather propounded that compoundability based on the compromise/compounding should not convey the wrong message to the society which may affect public tranquility but, however, even the offence under Sections 324, 326 and 307 of IPC which though are not compoundable but considering the circumstances the Court can always passed an order considering the compounding application. 3. Present 482 Application is accompanied with the compounding application, which has been filed under joint affidavit duly signed by all the parties to the 482 application invoking Section 320 of Cr.P.C., contending thereof that as per the understanding, which have been arrived at between the parties, complainant/respondent no.2, who is present in person before this Court and identified by his counsel, had made a statement that due to subsequent developments and on account of the settlement which has been arrived at between the parties, he does not want to prosecute the present applicants for the offences as levelled by him against them in FIR dated 01.10.2014 registered as FIR No. 241 of 2014. In the compounding application, they had made the following averments :- “6. In the compounding application, they had made the following averments :- “6. That during the pendency of trial the parties have reached into the amicable settlement and developed their cordial relationship and now the parties have no grievance against each other as such deponent informant is willing to compound the section charged against the present applicants and does not want to prosecute the applicants in any manner as both the parties settled the dispute amicable. 7. That since matter is amicably settled between the parties and continuation of the present proceedings as against the applicants will nothing but a futile exercise and gross misuse of process of law as there is no chance of conviction of the applicants in the present facts and circumstances of the case particularly keeping in mind that parties have buried their difference and reached into the amicable settlement. 8. That in terms of law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Nikhil Merchant Vs. C.B.I. reported in (2008) 9 SCC page 677 and Gyan Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2012) 1 SCC page 303, the present criminal proceedings pending against the applicants can be quashed in view of amicable settlement between the parties to restore peace and harmony in the Society if otherwise the offence charged is not crime against the society.” 4. Considering the averments made in paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 of the compounding application, it would be absolutely a futile exercise to force the parties to face the proceedings before the criminal court, more particularly, when its ultimate culmination would be resulting into an act of futility, where the complainant does intend to prosecute the accused due to subsequent developments. 5. While making reference to the statement, as mentioned in the aforesaid paragraphs, they have also placed reliance on decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court. The Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down the basic principles in criminal offences, though, not compoundable under Section 320 CrPC or if it relates to offences which can be compounded with the leave of the Superior Courts, the Court can always while exercising its powers under Section 482 CrPC, compound the offence, subject to the condition that the parties express their willingness for compounding of the said offence and nature of offence sought to be compounded is not in the shape of public offence. 6. 6. In the present case, applicants of the present 482 application who are present in person and they have been duly identified by their counsel. Similarly, the complaint/respondent no.2 who is also present in person has also been duly identified by his counsel had supported their stand taken in the compounding application. 7. Considering the terms of the compromise and also the ratio as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgments as referred in paragraph 8 to the compounding application, as well as based on the judgment as referred in 2018 (2) UD 280 Pan Singh Rana Vs. State of Uttarakhand and another, Compounding Application No. 193 of 2019 would stand allowed and as a consequent thereto present C482 Application would also stand allowed as a result thereto, the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 2869 of 2015, State Vs. Roshan Lal and others, under Section 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 504 & 506 of I.P.C. registered before learned Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar would stand quashed. Consequently, 482 Application stands allowed.