Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 205 (UTT)

Salman v. State of Uttarakhand

2023-02-27

SHARAD KUMAR SHARMA

body2023
JUDGMENT : Sharad Kumar Sharma, J. Normally, the 482 CrPC jurisdiction so far it relates to the compounding of the offences, which are private in nature, and emanating from the matrimonial dispute, the Court takes a liberal view, but this would be a case where a liberal aptitude of the Court is not required to be ventured to be adopted and applied in the instant case. 2. As per the case of the applicants as submitted in the 482 application, in C482 Application No.1165 of 2021, it is not in dispute that the complainant/respondent has registered FIR No.429 of 2020, dated 20.06.2020, for alleged involvement of the present applicants for commission of the offence under sections 323, 498A, 504 and 506 of IPC and under sections 3/4 of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights over Marriage) Act, 2019. Apparently, the controversy since being private in nature, it seems to be compoundable on the joint request to be made by the parties by filing an appropriate application under section 320 of CrPC. 3. Initially after the grant of the interim order dated 03.09.2021, the notices were issued to respondent no.2, and respondent no.2, has filed a counter affidavit, and had contested the proceedings by placing on record, the documents in relation to the atrocities exercised by the applicants against the respondent, and in support thereto, she has also placed on record the photographs of the injuries suffered by her and the medical report too. The contents of the said counter affidavit filed by the respondent no.2, has not been objected by the applicants, and rather on the contrary, the compounding application has been preferred under the joint signatures of the parties contending thereof that they have entered into a settlement. 4. In a matrimonial dispute, in case, if at all, there is a settlement, its terms has had to be in writing, giving thereof the terms and conditions of the settlement of the dispute, and the reasons behind it. The affidavits filed respectively by both the parties in the instant case are as vague as the pleadings in 482 application are, and there is no specific reasons given though number of the grounds has been attempted to be assigned to the compounding application by the learned counsel for the applicants, which are outside the records. 5. The affidavits filed respectively by both the parties in the instant case are as vague as the pleadings in 482 application are, and there is no specific reasons given though number of the grounds has been attempted to be assigned to the compounding application by the learned counsel for the applicants, which are outside the records. 5. Even the respondent no.2/the complainant, who is present before this Court, this Court had interacted with her in the presence of the applicant no.1, ex-husband of the present respondent no.2, and she has submitted before the Court that she was constrained to enter into a settlement because of the development, which has taken place thereafter, that after giving Triple Talaq to the complainant, in violation to the Act of 2019, the applicant no.1, has already married for the second time, and out of the second marriage, he has got children. In the absence of there being any reasons given or much less a valid reason, merely because of the fact that, which has been argued though outside the records of the pleadings, that the solemnization of the second marriage by applicant No.1, was with her consent is a fact, which is not revealed from the pleadings nor even in the terms of the compounding application, nor the statement recorded by respondent No.2 before this Court. 6. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties as well as the private parties to the dispute, who are present before this Court and having scrutinized, the allegations leveled in the FIR No.429, dated 20.06.2020, it was absolutely an atrocious act, on part of the applicants to have brutally assaulted respondent no.2, which is a fact not denied by them. The conditions of the settlement, which has been sought to be referred to in terms of the compounding application has been attempted by the learned counsel for the applicants to be justified by virtue of the so called report submitted by the SSP, Saharanpur, on 06.11.2020, wherein, the SSP, Saharanpur, while making submitting his report to Commissioner, Saharanpur Mandal, has reported that the divorce has taken place, and the second marriage was solemnized with the consent of the complainant. 7. 7. To what extent this document or report of SSP Saharanpur, would be acceptable for the purposes of resolving a matrimonial dispute, would still be a subject matter to be scrutinized in the proceedings of the Criminal Case No.61 of 2021, “State Vs. Salman and others”, because apparently it shows that the said report was submitted in FIR No.429 of 2020, dated 20.06.2020, as it was registered by the respondent no.2. 8. In that eventuality, and looking to the atrocities exercised by the present applicant no.1, as against respondent no.2, which is a social menace, he cannot be permitted to be left scot free without the establishment of the fact, about the set of alleged act of the atrocities and the allegations leveled in the FIR. 9. Hence, this Court while rejecting the compounding application, which is not based on any sound terms and conditions, and particularly, looking to the contents of FIR and the Chargesheet submitted by the Investigating Officer as well as the medical report submitted by the Doctor, who had attended upon respondent no.2, this Court is apart from the fact, that it is not inclined to exercise its powers under section 320 of CrPC to be read with section 482 of CrPC, this Court is of the view that since the controversy engages consideration and the appreciation of the evidence for the purposes of establishment of the offences, which has been committed by the present applicants against respondent no.2. The compounding application is rejected, so would be the consequences to the 482 application also. 10. So far as the connected C482 Application No.1128 of 2022, is concerned, it is emanating from the same FIR which was registered on 20.06.2020, but, herein, the challenge which has been given by the present applicants, which imputes the ex-husband of the complainant to the summoning order dated 18.01.2021, passed by the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Laksar, Haridwar, as well as, the Chargesheet No.638 of 2020, in fact, since the very genesis of this C482 application itself is foundationed upon the earlier FIR, no interference is being made or called for in this C482 application too, because the compounding application herein too is yet again is based upon the same set of pleadings, as raised by the learned counsel for the applicants. This C482 application too would stands dismissed. 11. This C482 application too would stands dismissed. 11. The C482 Application No.1740 of 2022, emanates from the Complaint Case No.1007 of 2021, “Parvez Bharti Vs. Salman and others”, wherein, the present applicants in the complaint case has been summoned to be tried for the offences under sections 392, 323 and 506 of IPC, as registered at Police Station Pathri, District Haridwar, which is presently pending consideration before the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. 12. In this complaint proceedings, which has been registered, therein, the summoning order has been issued by the court on 10.08.2022, which is under challenge. After having scrutinize the summoning order and being thoughtful of the consideration that one of the offences that is section 392 of IPC does not fall for within the ambit of the consideration for the composition under section 320 of the CrPC, but still yet again looking to the complaint, which finds place on record as Annexure No.3, to the C482 application, which has been registered by Parvez Bharti S/o Sharif Ahmed Ansari, as against the present applicants in relation to the incident, which has been narrated, therein, in fact on a composite reading of the set of allegations leveled in these three C482 applications, they all do require its test by trial before the learned Trial Court, after giving an opportunity of hearing and evidence to the parties to lead their respective evidence in order to prove their innocence. 13. The C482 application is not to be required to be ventured into for closing the criminal proceedings or the complaint proceedings in the absence of there being any logical ground contained in the respective compounding application which has been respectively filed in the three C482 applications preferred by the parties, and particularly, in view of the statement made by the respondent no.2, before this Court in the presence of the respective counsels. This C482 application would lead to the same destiny, with its dismissal.