Sunil Rawat vs State Of Uttarakhand & Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 324 UK

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
                   NAINITAL
             Criminal Revision No. 22 of 2021
                           With
      Compounding Application (IA No.4 of 2021)


Sunil Rawat                                    ......Revisionist

                             versus

State of Uttarakhand & another....                  Respondents

Mr. Pankaj Miglani, Advocate for the revisionist.
Mr. Ms. Lata Negi, learned Brief Holder for the State.
Mr. Aakib Ahmed, learned Counsel for the complainant.


Hon'ble R.C. Khulbe, J.

The delay of 259 days in preferring the revision is not opposed, and the delay is, therefore, condoned.

2. The revision has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 18.02.2020, passed by learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Rishikesh, District Dehradun in Criminal Appeal No.156 of 2019, Sunil Rawat Vs. State of Uttarakhand, whereby the learned Appellate Court had partly allowed the appeal and maintained the sentences for the offences under Sections 323 & 325 of IPC but had directed that both the sentences would run concurrently; the revisionist was sentenced by the learned trial court in Criminal Case No. 230 of 2014, State vs. Sunil Rawat, whereby the revisionist was convicted and sentenced to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment under Section 325 along with fine of Rs.1000/- and three months' rigorous imprisonment under Section 323 of IPC along with fine of Rs. 1000/-; however, the trial court directed that both the sentences shall run separately.

3. The parties have filed a compounding application jointly to show that the parties have buried their differences and have settled their disputes amicably. It is also stated that the parties have entered into a compromise.

4. Learned counsel for the State although opposed the compounding application but fairly submitted that the case is compoundable with the permission of the Court and keeping in view the nature of the case it can be compounded.

5.         Sections     323    and    325        of   IPC   are
compoundable      offences     within      the    scheme     of

Section 320 of Cr.P.C. However, the Hon'ble Apex Court's in the case of Gyan Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in 2013(1) SCC Criminal 160, has permitted compounding of such offences in order to maintain peace and harmony between the parties.

6. Parties are present before the Court today through video-conferencing and they are duly identified by their respective counsels.

7. Learned counsel for the parties drew the attention of this Court towards the ruling of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another, (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 160, in which Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as below:

"The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to

secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."

8. In view of the aforesaid dictum of Hon'ble Supreme Court, the compounding application is

allowed. As a consequence thereof, the impugned judgment and order dated 18.02.2020, passed by learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Rishikesh, District Dehradun in Criminal Appeal No.156 of 2019, Sunil Rawat Vs. State of Uttarakhand as well as the judgment and order dated 31.05.2019 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Rishikesh in Criminal Case No.230 of 2014, State vs. Sunil Rawat, are set aside on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties. The conviction and sentences recorded by the courts below against present revisionist are set aside. Accused-revisionist is acquitted of the offences under Sections 323 and 325 of IPC. His bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged.

9. The criminal revision stands disposed of.

10. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.

(R.C. Khulbe, J.) (Vacation Judge) Dt. 03.02.2021 Balwant