Uttarakhand High Court
Lokesh & Others ... vs State Of Uttarakhand & Another on 15 July, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No. 306 of 2011
With
Compounding Application (IA No. 3131 of 2021)
Lokesh & others .........Revisionists
versus
State of Uttarakhand & another.... Respondents
Mr. Gaurav Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist.
Mr. Subhash Tyagi Bhardwaj, learned Dy. Advocate General
for the State.
Mr. Pranav Singh, learned counsel for the private
respondent.
Hon'ble R.C. Khulbe, J.
This revision has been preferred
against the judgment and order dated
12.10.2009, passed by the Judicial Magistrate
1st Class Roorkee, Haridwar in Criminal Case No.
1338 of 2007 whereby the revisionists were
convicted and sentenced to six months rigorous
imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/- under
section 498 A IPC; the revisionists have also put
a challenge to the judgment and order dated
16.12.2011 passed by 6th Additional District &
Sessions Judge, Haridwar in Criminal Appeal No.
62 of 2009, Lokesh & others vs. State of
Uttarakhand, whereby the learned Appellate
Court had affirmed the judgment of the trial
court.
2. It is submitted by the learned
counsel for the revisionist that revisionist no. 2
Naresh has passed away. Accordingly, the
revision stands abated against him.
3. The parties have filed a
Compounding Application (IA No. 3131 of
2021) jointly to show that the parties have
buried their differences and have settled their
dispute 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 can be
compounded with the permission of the Court.
5. Section 498-A IPC is a non-
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. Heard learned counsel for the
revisionist as well as learned counsel for the
private respondent through video-
conferencing.
7. Parties are present before the Court
today and they are duly identified by their
respective counsels.
8. 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."
9. In view of the aforesaid dictum of
Hon'ble Supreme Court, the compounding
application is allowed. As a consequence,
thereof, the judgment and order dated
12.10.2009, passed by the Judicial Magistrate
1st Class Roorkee, Haridwar in Criminal Case
No. 1338 of 2007 as well as the judgment and
order dated 16.12.2011 passed by 6th
Additional District & Sessions Judge, Haridwar
in Criminal Appeal No. 62 of 2009, Lokesh &
others vs. State of Uttarakhand are hereby set
aside in respect of the revisionists, on the
basis of compromise arrived at between the
parties. The conviction and sentences recorded
by the courts below against present
revisionists are set aside. Accused-revisionists
stand acquitted of the charge of Sections 498A
IPC. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties
are discharged.
10. The criminal revision stands disposed
of.
11 Pending applications, if any, also
stand disposed of accordingly.
(R.C. Khulbe, J.)
15.07.2021
Parul
