A single judge bench of Justice Pankaj Purohit of the Uttarakhand High Court in the case of Brijpal Singh Gahalaut Vs Simran@Soni held that the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is wider than the provisions given under the code.
Brief Facts:
The factual matrix of the case is that the complaint was filed by Simran @ Soni in which it was alleged that Brijpal Singh Gahalaut concealed the facts that he was already married and solemnized marriage with the private Respondent. The present compounding application is filed by the applicant. It was submitted that the parties have arrived at a compromise which is also supported by affidavits.
The applicant agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 22 lakhs to the private respondent as a permanent alimony for her and her son’s maintenance and will also give a plot of 180 squire Yard.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent contended that the plot has already been transferred in the name of the respondent and out of 22 lakhs only 9 lakhs are received.
Contentions of the State:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the state contended that It is improper to compound the offense at the request of the parties since the offense under Section 495 of the IPC is not compoundable in light of the provisions of Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. (the Code).
Observations of the Court:
The Hon’ble court observed that the provisions of Section 320 of the Code cannot be used to override this Court's inherent powers, despite the fact that the offense under Section 495 of the IPC is not compoundable under Cr.P.C. The power granted under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is broader than that granted by the Code.
Based on these considerations, the court was of the view that the dispute arises from a matrimonial relation between the parties and quashed the criminal proceedings under Section 495 of IPC.
The decision of the Court:
With the above direction, the court allowed the application.
Case Title: Brijpal Singh Gahalaut Vs Simran@Soni
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Purohit
Case No.: C482 No. 1629 of 2023
Advocate for the Applicant: Mr. Tapan Singh, learned counsel
Advocate for the State: Mr. K.S. Rawal, learned A.G.A.
Advocate for the Applicant: Mr. Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source : YouTube.com
