Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 768 (HP)

Ravinder Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2022-11-30

SANDEEP SHARMA

body2022
JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. By way of instant criminal revision petition filed under Section 397 of Cr.PC read with Section 482 Cr.PC, challenge has been laid to judgment dated 25.2.2022, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Kangra at Dharamshala, in Criminal Appeal No. 8-K/X/2015 thereby modifying the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 4/7.3.2015, passed by the learned JMFC, Kangra, District Kangra, H.P., in Criminal Case No. 106-II/2005, whereby court below while holding the petitioners-accused guilty of having committed offences punishable under Sections 452, 506 and 205 of IPC read with Section 34 IPC, convicted and sentenced him, as per the description given herein below:- Sr. No. Offence Sentence Fine Amount (Rs.) Sentence of imprisonment in default of fine to undergo SI 1. 452 of IPC SI for six months Rs. 1000/- Three days. 2. 506 of IPC SI for three months Rs.1000/- Three days. 3. 205 of IPC SI for three months Rs. 1000/- Three days. 2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record are that on 16.1.2005 at about 6:20pm, police after having received telephonic information that quarrel was taking place at Zamanabad, entered the information in the DDR at Sr. No. 22 and thereafter, ASI Ramesh Chand alongwith HHC Madan Lal went to Panchayat house, Zamanabad, and recorded the statement of complainant Smt. Suman Lata, who claimed herself to be Advocate, under Section 154 Cr.PC. She alleged that on 16.1.2005 at about 5:45 pm, while she was present in her house alongwith mother-in-law Smt. Samangla Devi and Smt. Dharmo Devi, four persons namely Sandeep Singh & Surender Singh, both sons of Amar Singh, Rajinder Kumar s/o Sh. Saldu Ram and Pardeep Kumar entered her house unauthorizedly carrying iron rods in their hand. She alleged that above named persons started breaking the articles kept in the house and also hurled abuses at her. Complainant alleged that aforesaid persons were looking for one Sanjay Kumar, who at that relevant time was not present in the house. She alleged that in the meanwhile, her brother in law Nishant came there and tried to inquire about the matter from the above named persons, but person namely Billu attacked Nishant with iron rod. Complainant alleged that aforesaid persons were looking for one Sanjay Kumar, who at that relevant time was not present in the house. She alleged that in the meanwhile, her brother in law Nishant came there and tried to inquire about the matter from the above named persons, but person namely Billu attacked Nishant with iron rod. In the meantime, Neelam Kumar s/o Dhani Ram came on the spot and snatched the iron rod from Billu, who alongwith other persons ran away from the spot on seeing Nishant, Neelam Kumar and Dhani Ram, however they were later on caught by the villagers near Panchayat house and information of the incident was given to the police on telephone by the villagers. On the basis of aforesaid statement made by the complainant, FIR Ex.PW9/A came to be lodged against the petitioners-accused. 3. Learned trial Court on the basis of material adduced on record by the respective parties, vide judgment dated 4/7.3.2015, held the petitioners-accused guilty of having committed offence punishable under Sections 452, 504 and 205 read with Section 34 of the IPC and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him as per the description given herein above. 4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment of conviction recorded by the court below, accused preferred an appeal in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Kangra at Dharmshala, H.P., who while partly allowing the appeal acquitted the accused of offence punishable under Section 205 read with Section 34 of IPC but upheld the conviction and sentence awarded by the learned trial court under Sections 452 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. In the aforesaid background, present petitioners-accused have approached this Court by way of instant proceedings, seeking therein their acquittal after setting aside the judgment of conviction recorded by the court below. 5. Though vide order dated 25.3.2022, this Court suspended the substantive sentence imposed by the court below subject to furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court and admitted the petition for hearing, but before same could decided on its own merits, an application bearing Cr.MP No. 3164 of 2022 under Section 482 of Cr.PC, praying therein for quashing of judgment of conviction and order of sentence recorded against them under Sections 452 and 506 of IPC. 6. 6. Though opportunity was granted to the respondent-State to file reply to the afore application, but same has not been filed. Learned Deputy Advocate General fairly states that application at hand can be heard and decided on its own merits on the basis of material available on record. 7. Careful perusal of averments contained in the aforesaid application i.e. CrMP No. 3164 of 2022 reveals that after recording of conviction and order of sentence against the petitioners, petitioners and complainant Smt. Suman Lata have entered into compromise, whereby they have resolved to settle their dispute amicably inter-se them. Compromise placed on record alongwith application reveals that both the parties i.e. accused and the complainant, who belong to the same village and are related to each other, with the intervention of the elders and with a view to maintain cordial relations in future, have decided to live peacefully and as such, complainant has decided not to prosecute the case further and shall have no objection in care petitioners are acquitted of the offences alleged to have been committed by them under Sections 452 and 506 of IPC. It has been further stated in the compromise that both the parties of their own volition and without there being external pressure have entered into compromise. 8. Complainant Suman Lata, who is otherwise an Advocate, stated on oath that she of her own volition and without any external pressure has entered into compromise with the accused, whereby both the parties have decided to settle their dispute amicably. She stated that since the accused apologized for their misbehavior and misconduct and have undertaken not to repeat such act in future coupled with the fact that both the parties, want to maintain cordial relations with each other, she shall have no objection in case the accused are acquitted of the charges framed against them for their having committed offences punishable under Sections 452 and 506 of IPC read with Section 34 IPC. While admitting contents of the compromise to be correct, she also admitted her signatures on the same. Her aforesaid statement made on oath is taken on record. 9. While admitting contents of the compromise to be correct, she also admitted her signatures on the same. Her aforesaid statement made on oath is taken on record. 9. After having heard aforesaid statement made by the complainant, learned Deputy Advocate General stated that though parties have entered into compromise, but since petitioners-accused already stand convicted, it may not be in the interest of justice to consider their prayer for quashing of judgment of conviction, which is otherwise not permissible under the law. 10. Mr. Adarsh Vashista, learned counsel for the petitioners while inviting attention of this Court to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Cr.Appeal Nos. 1488 and 1489 of 2012, titled Ramgopal and Anr v. The State of Madhya Pradesh (a/w connected matter), submitted that even after recording of conviction, court can proceed to compound the offence if it is satisfied that same would bring harmony and peace among the parties and no prejudice would be caused to either of the parties. 11. Having perused aforesaid judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, this Court finds that court while exercising power under Section 482 Cr.PC can proceed to compound the offence even after recording of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence. In the aforesaid judgment Hon’ble Apex Court has categorically held that High Court having regard to the nature of offence and the fact that parties have settled their dispute and the victim has willingly consented to the nullification of criminal proceedings can quash such proceedings in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.PC., even if the offence are non-compoundable, however while doing so, high court is under obligation to evaluate the consequential effects of the offence beyond the body of an individual and thereafter, adopt a pragmatic approach to ensure that the felony even if goes unpunished, does not tinker with or paralyze the very object of the administration of criminal justice system. The Hon’ble Apex Court having taken note of its earlier judgment passed in Narinder Singh & others vs. State of Punjab & another, (2014) 6 SCC 466 , has though reiterated that court should be reluctant in compounding the heinous and serious offences of mental depravity, murder, rape and dacoity etc, but categorically ruled that criminal proceedings involving non-heinous offences, where the offences predominantly are of private nature, could be set aside at any stage of the proceedings, including at the appellate level. It would be apt to take note of following paras of the judgment passed in Ramgopal’s case (supra): “12. The High Court, therefore, having regard to the nature of the offence and the fact that parties have amicably settled their dispute and the victim has willingly consented to the nullification of criminal proceedings, can quash such proceedings in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., even if the offences are non compoundable. The High Court can indubitably evaluate the consequential effects of the offence beyond the body of an individual and thereafter adopt a pragmatic approach, to ensure that the felony, even if goes unpunished, does not tinker with or paralyze the very object of the administration of criminal justice system. 13. It appears to us that criminal proceedings involving non-heinous offences or where the offences are predominantly of a private nature, can be annulled irrespective of the fact that trial has already been concluded or appeal stands dismissed against conviction. Handing out punishment is not the sole form of delivering justice. Societal method of applying laws evenly is always subject to lawful exceptions. It goes without saying, that the cases where compromise is struck post conviction, the High Court ought to exercise such discretion with rectitude, keeping in view the circumstances surrounding the incident, the fashion in which the compromise has been arrived at, and with due regard to the nature and seriousness of the offence, besides the conduct of the accused, before and after the incidence. The touchstone for exercising the extraordinary power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. would be to secure the ends of justice. There can be no hard and fast line constricting the power of the High Court to do substantial justice. The touchstone for exercising the extraordinary power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. would be to secure the ends of justice. There can be no hard and fast line constricting the power of the High Court to do substantial justice. A restrictive construction of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may lead to rigid or specious justice, which in the given facts and circumstances of a case, may rather lead to grave injustice. On the other hand, in cases where heinous offences have been proved against perpetrators, no such benefit ought to be extended, as cautiously observed by this Court in Narinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Ors and Laxmi Narayan (Supra). 14. In other words, grave or serious offences or offences which involve moral turpitude or have a harmful effect on the social and moral fabric of the society or involve matters concerning public policy, cannot be construed betwixt two individuals or groups only, for such offences have the potential to impact the society at large. Effacing abominable offences through quashing process would not only send a wrong signal to the community but may also accord an undue benefit to unscrupulous habitual or professional offenders, who can secure a ‘settlement’ through duress, threats, social boycotts, bribes or other dubious means. It is well said that “let no guilty man escape, if it can be avoided.” 19. We thus sum-up and hold that as opposed to Section 320 Cr.P.C. where the Court is squarely guided by the compromise between the parties in respect of offences ‘compoundable’ within the statutory framework, the extraordinary power enjoined upon a High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution, can be invoked beyond the metes and bounds of Section 320 Cr.P.C. Nonetheless, we reiterate that such powers of wide amplitude ought to be exercised carefully in the context of quashing criminal proceedings, bearing in mind: (i) Nature and effect of the offence on the conscious of the society; (ii) Seriousness of the injury, if any; (iii) Voluntary nature of compromise between the accused and the victim; & (iv) Conduct of the accused persons, prior to and after the occurrence of the purported offence and/or other relevant considerations.” 12. Since in the case at hand, petitioners-accused and complainant, who hail from the same village, of their own volition and without there being any external pressure, have entered into compromise, thereby resolving their dispute amicably inter-se them, no fruitful purpose would be served by declining the prayer made by the petitioners for compounding of offence alleged to have been committed by them under Sections 452 and 506 of IPC. Complainant has categorically stated before this Court that since petitioners- accused have already apologized for their misbehavior and undertaken not to repeat such act in future coupled with the fact that they want to maintain cordial relations with each other in future, no fruitful purpose would be served by sending the persons behind bars pursuant to judgment of conviction recorded against them because in that eventuality, bitterness inter-se both the parties would further aggravate. To the contrary, if compromise is effected between the parties, as has been prayed for, there are chances of the parties living in peace in future. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case as well as law taken into consideration, this Court finds no impediment in accepting the prayer made by the parties for quashing of judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.2.2022, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kangra. 13. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is disposed of as compromised, as a result of which, judgment of conviction dated 25.2.2022, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Kangra, is quashed and set-aside and petitioners are acquitted of the charges framed against them under Sections 452 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC. Bail bonds are ordered to be discharged and interim order, if any, is vacated. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.