Pradeep Kumar Samal vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 5886 Chatt

                                                           Page 1 of 4


                                                                NAFR

             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                         CRR No. 81 of 2022

    Pradeep Kumar Samal, S/o Late A. B. Samal, Aged About 46
     Years, R/o Rama Green City Phase-2, D-241, Sarkanda, Police
     Station Sarkanda, Bilaspur, Tahsil and District- Bilaspur,
     Chhattisgarh.                               ---- Applicant

                             Versus

    State of Chhattisgarh, Acting through Officer-In-Charge, Police
     Station Sarkanda, Bilaspur, Civil and Revenue District- Bilaspur,
     Chhattisgarh.                              ---- Non-Applicant


     For Applicant       : Mr. Ajay Ayachi, Advocate
     For State           : Mr. Sudhir Sahu, Panel Lawyer
     For complainant     : Mr. Sandeep Yadav, Advocate


             Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
                          Order on Board
20.09.2022

  1.

This Criminal Revision has been filed against the judgment

passed by the VIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in

Criminal Appeal Nos. 250/2019 & 26/2020 on 06.01.2022,

whereby the conviction and sentence awarded by the Special

Railway Magistrate, Bilaspur in Criminal Case No. 9397 of 2013

convicting the applicant under Section 498-A of IPC and

sentencing him to undergo R.I. for 6 months and to pay fine of

Rs. 1,000/- and default of fine further SI for 40 days, has been

maintained.

2. The present applicant and complainant Smt. Subhashri Sahu

were married in the year 2007, thereafter on account of some

quarrel FIR was lodged for the offence punishable under Section

498-A of IPC. The applicant was prosecuted and ultimately he

was convicted by the learned Special Railway Magistrate,

Bilaspur in Criminal Case No. 9397/2013 vide judgment of

conviction and order of sentence dated 27.11.2019.

3. The appeal was preferred by the complainant for enhancement

of sentence as well as appeal preferred by the present applicant

against the conviction and sentence stood dismissed.

4. The applicant has filed the instant Criminal Revision before this

Court against the conviction and sentence. Vide order dated

30.06.2022 application for suspension of sentence and grant of

bail, was allowed by this Court.

5. During the pendency of this Criminal Revision the applicant as

well as the complainant have amicably resolved their dispute and

a joint application of the parties for compromise was allowed by

this Court on 18.08.2022 and both the parties were sent to

record their statements before the Registrar Judicial, wherein

they were identified by their respective counsel. Their

statements have been recorded, in which they have stated that

they have entered into compromise, particularly the complainant

does not want to prosecute the case against the present

applicant further.

6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Gian Singh vs

State of Punjab & Anr reported in 2012(10) SCC 303, after

considering the law, has concluded in paragraph Nos. 57 & 58

as under:-

"57.Quashing of offence or criminal proceedings on the ground of settlement between an offender and victim is not the

same thing as compounding of offence.

They are different and not interchangeable. Strictly speaking, the power of compounding of offences given to a court Under Section 320 is materially different from the quashing of criminal proceedings by the High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. In compounding of offences, power of a criminal court is circumscribed by the provisions contained in Section 320 and the court is guided solely and squarely thereby while, on the other hand, the formation of opinion by the High Court for quashing a criminal offence or criminal proceeding or criminal complaint is guided by the material on record as to whether the ends of justice would justify such exercise of power although the ultimate consequence may be acquittal or dismissal of indictment.

58. Where High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that dispute between the offender and victim has been settled although offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. No doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful effect on the public and consist in wrong doing that seriously endangers and threatens well-being of society and it is not safe to leave the crime-doer only because he and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the victim has been paid compensation, yet certain crimes have been made compoundable in law, with or without permission of the Court. In respect of serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc; or other offences of mental depravity under Indian Penal Code or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between offender and victim can have no legal sanction at all. However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial,

partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to victim and the offender and victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or F.I.R if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated. The above list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Each case will depend on its own facts and no hard and fast category can be prescribed."

7. Keeping in mind the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the matter of Gian Singh (supra) and considering the

statements of the applicant and the complainant, further the

continuation to the proceeding would be abuse of process of

Court, therefore, the applicant/accused is acquitted from the

charge under Section 498-A of IPC. Consequently, the criminal

revision is disposed of.

Sd/-

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nadim