Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 38 (HP)

Chaman Lal v. State of H. P.

2023-01-10

SANDEEP SHARMA

body2023
JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. Instant Criminal Revision petition filed under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, lays challenge to judgment dated 18.12.2021 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P., in Criminal Appeal No.117 of 2018, affirming the judgment of conviction dated 22.06.2018 and order of sentence dated 28.06.2018, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P., in Police Challan No.262-I of 2013/81-II/2013, whereby learned trial Court while holding petitioner-accused guilty of having committed an offence punishable under Sections 354 and 451 of IPC, convicted and sentenced him, as per the description given hereinbelow:- Sr. No. Offence Sentence Fine Amount (Rs.) Sentence of imprisonment in default of fine to undergo SI 1. 354 of IPC RI for one year Rs. 1500/- 15 days 2. 451 of IPC RI for one year Rs. 1500/- 15 days 2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record are that FIR No.70 of 2013, dated 1.4.2013, under Sections 452 and 354 of IPC, came to be registered at police Station, Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P., on the complaint made by complainant Smt. Kala Devi, who alleged that on 31.03.2013, her husband and others had gone to Nerad at the house of Raj Kumar, who was constructing a house. Complainant alleged that her brother-in-law finding her alone attempted to outrage her modesty. She alleged that accused not only unauthorizedly entered her room but also behaved indecently. On the basis of aforesaid complaint, police lodged the FIR and presented the challan in the competent court of law under Sections 452 and 354 of IPC. 3. Learned trial Court on the basis of the evidence adduced on record by the respective parties, held accused guilty of having committed the offence punishable under Sections 452 and 354 of IPC and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him as per the description given hereinabove. 4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence recorded by trial court, present petitioner-accused preferred an appeal in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P., but same was dismissed vide judgment dated 18.12.2021. In the aforesaid background, petitioner-accused has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for his acquittal after quashing and setting aside the impugned judgments and order of sentence passed by learned Courts below. 5. In the aforesaid background, petitioner-accused has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for his acquittal after quashing and setting aside the impugned judgments and order of sentence passed by learned Courts below. 5. Vide order dated 2.09.2022, this Court suspended the substantive sentenced imposed by the Court below, subject to the applicant’s depositing fine amount, if not already deposited, within a period of four weeks and furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- within one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. Though, aforesaid order stands duly complied with, but before the case at hand could be heard and decided on its own merit, parties have entered into the compromise, whereby they have resolved to settle their dispute amicably interse them. In the aforesaid background, petitioner-accused approached this Court by way of an application bearing Cr.MP No.23 of 2023 under Section 482 Cr.P.C., praying therein for quashing of FIR No.70 of 2013, dated 1.4.2013, under Sections 452 and 354of IPC, registered at police Station, Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P as well as judgment of conviction and order of sentence recorded against him, on the basis of the compromise. 6. Vide order dated 7.01.2023, this Court directed the respondent-State to verify factum with regard to compromise and also called upon the complainant to come present in Court. Though, instructions of the respondent-State are still awaited, but respondent-complainant Smt. Kala Devi has come present in person and has been identified by Mr. Surender Verma, Advocate. She states on oath before this Court that she of her own volition and without there being any external pressure has entered into the compromise with the petitioner, whereby both the parties have resolved to settle their dispute amicably interse them. She states that since petitioner, who is her brother-in-law, has already apologized for his misbehaviour and misconduct and has undertaken not to repeat such act in future, she shall have no objection in case prayer made in the instant application for quashing of FIR, is accepted and petitioner-accused is acquitted for the charges framed against him. She states that since petitioner-accused is her real brother-in-law, she with the intervention of respectable members of the family have decided not to prosecute the case further, so that relationship interse her and petitioner remains cordial in future. She states that since petitioner-accused is her real brother-in-law, she with the intervention of respectable members of the family have decided not to prosecute the case further, so that relationship interse her and petitioner remains cordial in future. While admitting the contents of the compromise to be correct, she also admits her signature on the same. Her aforesaid statement made on oath is taken on record. 7. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General after having heard the aforesaid statement made by complainant Smt. Kala Devi, states that since petitioner-accused has already stands convicted for his having committed the offence punishable under Sections 354 and 451 of IPC and such conviction has been upheld by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sundernagar, prayer made on behalf of the petitioner-accused for quashing of the FIR as well as judgment of conviction, may not be accepted. 8. Mr. Surender Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner 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. 9. 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 offense 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.” 10. Since in the case at hand, petitioner-accused and complainant, who are close related with each other, 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 petitioner for compounding of offence alleged to have been committed by him under Section 452 and 354 of IPC. Complainant has categorically stated before this Court that since petitioner- accused has already apologized for his 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 person behind bars pursuant to judgment of conviction recorded against him 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 FIR as well as judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Courts below. 11. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is disposed of as compromised, as a result of which, FIR No.70 of 2013, dated 1.4.2013, under Sections 452 and 354 of IPC, registered at police Station, Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P., as well as judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by courts below, are quashed and set-aside and petitioner is acquitted of the charges framed against him under Sections 452 and 354 IPC. Bail bonds are ordered to be discharged and interim order, if any, is vacated. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.