Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 578 (UTT)

Mohan Singh v. State of Uttarakhand

2024-08-29

RAKESH THAPLIYAL

body2024
JUDGMENT : RAKESH THAPLIYAL, J. 1. The present application has been preferred under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 along with the compounding application (IA 1/2024) supported with the affidavits of the applicants and respondent nos. 2 and 3. Both the applicants and respondent nos. 2 and 3 are present in court and are identified by their respective counsel through Aadhar card. Xerox copy of the same are taken on record. 2. It is a case in which a first information report was lodged by the respondent no. 2- Anand Singh Negi on 15.12.2015 at P.S. Mukhani, Haldwani, District Nainital bearing FIR No. 156 of 2015 implicating both the applicants for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 506 of IPC. After investigation, the charge-sheet was filed under Sections 323, 324 and 506 of IPC and after cognizance the applicants were summoned and the trial proceeded after framing of a charge and after conclusion of the trial both the applicants were convicted by the Trial Court by the judgment and order dated 09.12.2021, whereby, both the applicants were convicted and were sentenced to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine a further two months simple imprisonment is also directed to undergo. 3. Against the order of conviction dated 09.12.2021 a Criminal Appeal No. 70 of 2021 was preferred before the District and Session Judge, Nainital and that was admitted and both the applicants are on bail. 4. Now, in the compounding application it is contended that after conviction both the parties have settled their dispute amicably for which a joint affidavit has been filed in the form of the compounding application signed by both the parties in support of which the separate affidavits have been filed by each of the applicants and the respondent nos. 2 and 3, which is the part of the compounding application. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that after conviction in view of Section 320 (5) of Cr.P.C. the offence can be compounded with the leave of the court. In reference to this, he has placed reliance on one of the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Gopal and Another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2022) 14 SCC 531 by giving reference of paragraph nos. In reference to this, he has placed reliance on one of the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Gopal and Another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2022) 14 SCC 531 by giving reference of paragraph nos. 13, 18, 19 and 20 of the said judgment, which are being reproduced herein as under: “13. It appears to us that criminal proceedings involving nonheinous offences or where the offences are pre-dominantly 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. 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). 18. It is now a well crystalized axiom that the plenary jurisdiction of this Court to impart complete justice under Article 142 cannot ipso facto be limited or restricted by ordinary statutory provisions. It is also noteworthy that even in the absence of an express provision akin to Section 482 Cr.P.C. conferring powers on the Supreme Court to abrogate and set aside criminal proceedings, the jurisdiction exercisable under Article 142 of the Constitution embraces this Court with scopious powers to quash criminal proceedings also, so as to secure complete justice. It is also noteworthy that even in the absence of an express provision akin to Section 482 Cr.P.C. conferring powers on the Supreme Court to abrogate and set aside criminal proceedings, the jurisdiction exercisable under Article 142 of the Constitution embraces this Court with scopious powers to quash criminal proceedings also, so as to secure complete justice. In doing so, due regard must be given to the overarching objective of sentencing in the criminal justice system, which is grounded on the sublime philosophy of maintenance of peace of the collective and that the rationale of placing an individual behind bars is aimed at his reformation. 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 extra-ordinary power enjoined upon a High Court under ‘compoundable’ within the statutory framework, the extra-ordinary power enjoined upon a High Court under ‘compoundable’ within the statutory framework, the extra-ordinary power enjoined upon a High Court under ‘compoundable’ within the statutory framework, the extra-ordinary power enjoined upon a High Court under ‘compoundable’ within the statutory framework, the extra-ordinary power enjoined upon a High Court under ‘compoundable’ within the statutory framework, the extra-ordinary power enjoined upon a High Court under ‘compoundable’ within the statutory framework, the extra-ordinary power enjoined upon a High Court under 20. Having appraised the aforestated parameters and weighing upon the peculiar facts and circumstances of the two appeals before us, we are inclined to invoke powers under Article 142 and quash the criminal proceedings and consequently set aside the conviction in both the appeals. We say so for the reasons that: 20.1 Firstly, the occurrences involved in these appeals can be categorized as purely personal or having overtones of criminal proceedings of private nature. 20.2 Secondly, the nature of injuries incurred, for which the Appellants have been convicted, do not appear to exhibit their mental depravity or commission of an offence of such a serious nature that quashing of which would override public interest. 20.3 Thirdly, given the nature of the offence and injuries, it is immaterial that the trial against the Appellants had been concluded or their appeals against conviction stand dismissed. 20.3 Thirdly, given the nature of the offence and injuries, it is immaterial that the trial against the Appellants had been concluded or their appeals against conviction stand dismissed. 20.4 Fourthly, the parties on their own volition, without any coercion or compulsion, willingly and voluntarily have buried their differences and wish to accord a quietus to their disputes. 20.5 Fifthly, the occurrences in both the cases took place way back in the years 2000 and 1995, respectively. There is nothing on record to evince that either before or after the purported compromise, any untoward incident transpired between the parties. 20.6 Sixthly, since the Appellants and the complainants are residents of the same villages and/or work in close vicinity, the quashing of criminal proceedings will advance peace, harmony, and fellowship amongst the parties who have decided to forget and forgive any ill will and have no vengeance against each other. 20.7 Seventhly, the cause of administration of criminal justice system would remain uneffected on acceptance of the amicable settlement between the parties and/or resultant acquittal of the Appellants; more so looking at their present age.” 6. Learned Brief Holder for the State Mr. Akshay Latwal submits that though the offence punishable under Section 323 and 506 are compoundable but the offence punishable under Section 324 is non-compoundable. 7. In reference to the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC learned counsel for the parties submits that though the offence punishable under Section 324 is non-compoundable but the injuries sustained by the victim are not danger to life. 8. In reference, to this learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants and the respondents are residing in the same locality and they buried their differences and since long back they are living in peace and harmony and they want to maintain the same and they forgo any ill will and have no grudge against each other; therefore, in view of category of cases as categorized by the Hon’ble Apex Court in paragraph nos. 20.1, 20.3, 20.4 and 20.6 this offence can be compounded. 9. 20.1, 20.3, 20.4 and 20.6 this offence can be compounded. 9. I found force on the submission of the learned counsel for the parties and the State counsel also agreeable to this and furthermore the complainant is also present in court and this court also interacts with him and he also submits that his relation with the applicants are very cordial and he is not suffering any medical disability and is medically fit and the injuries, which he sustained, is in fact was not danger to life. 10. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and further after gone through with the judgment as relied upon by the learned counsel for the parties, this court is of the view that the compounding application deserves to be allowed. 11. Accordingly, the compounding application is allowed. The judgment and order passed by the Trial Court dated 09.12.2021 passed in Criminal Case No. 553 of 2016 by the IInd Judicial Magistrate, Haldwani, District Nainital convicting the applicants are set-aside and the applicants are acquitted from the charge. 12. Subject to the observation as made above, the present C482 application is disposed of finally.