Unknown vs Vikas @
2023 Latest Caselaw 1985 UK

                    Office Notes,
                   reports, orders
                   or proceedings
SL.
         Date       or directions                    COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No
                   and Registrar's
                     order with
                     Signatures
      01.08.2023
                                     C482 No. 2022 of 2022
                                     Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

Mr. Mohd. Alauddin, Advocate, for the applicant.

Mr. Atul Kumar Sah, Deputy Advocate General, for the State.

Mr. R.P. Singh, Advocate, for the respondents.

1. The instant C482 Application has been instituted for putting a challenge to the proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 27 of 2021, State Vs. Vikas @ Danveer, which stood instituted before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Laksar, District Haridwar.

2. As a consequence of the summoning order dated 24.02.2020, the present applicant has been summoned to be tried for the offence under Sections 504, 506, 307 of IPC. As a consequence of the registration of the said Sessions Trial, while putting a challenge to the entire proceedings, the applicant has also put a challenge to the cognizance order dated 24.02.2020 and the Chargesheet dated 12.02.2020.

3. The C482 Application is accompanied with Compounding Application (IA/1/2023), contending thereof, that since it was a minor family feud which has arisen because of certain disputes pertaining to "meth" dividing line of two agricultural plots, which takes the shape of a civil dispute, but on account of a spur of moment, the alleged incident is said to have chanced on 29.11.2019, where the applicant is said to have fired on Priti Devi, i.e. the respondent No. 3 herein. But, however, somehow, the fire made by the applicant missed, the victim and it didn't resulted into causing any injury.

4. It needs no reference that for the purposes of commission of offence under Section 307, injury may not be a reason to constitute an offence under Section 307. The C482 Application is accompanied with the Compounding Application, contending thereof, that since it is a private dispute, arising out of a dispute with regard to the two plots, over which they had rival claim. It has resulted into registration of the FIR and the consequential proceedings of the Sessions Trial for the offences under Sections 504, 506 and 307 of IPC.

5. The Compounding Application has been duly signed by all the parties including their counsels, giving thereof the terms and conditions under which the composition is being sought for the offence, but, however, the learned Government Advocate opposes the compounding application in the light of the objection filed by them, whereby contending thereof that since before the Sessions Court, the charges have already been framed and some of the witnesses have been examined. As such the offence for which the Sessions Trial has already been commenced that may not be compounded by this Court in the exercising of the inherent powers under Section 482 of CrPC.

6. In response it, the learned counsel for the applicant has referred to, that almost an identical situation was dealt by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a judgment as reported in 2014 (6) SCC 466, Narender Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and Another and particularly, that too for the purposes of composition of offence under Section 307, in which he has referred to the guidelines framed by the Hon'ble Apex Court as contained in para 29 and he has sought to attract para 29.6 which specifically deals with the composition of the offences under Section 307 of IPC, where certain parameters have been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, that the Court exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 of CrPC will have to go into vitality of the matter pertaining to the nature of injury caused, the nature of weapon used, the part of the body where the injuries have been caused and whether the nature of injury which has been suffered by the victim was dangerous to life or not. Para 29.6 of the aforesaid judgment is extracted hereunder:

"29.6. Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be generally treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to proving the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used, etc. Medical report in respect of injuries suffered by the victim can generally be the guiding factor. On the basis of this prima facie analysis, the High Court can examine as to whether there is a strong possibility of conviction or the chances of conviction are remote and bleak. In the former case it can refuse to accept the settlement and quash the criminal proceedings whereas in the latter case it would be permissible for the High Court to accept the plea compounding the offence based on complete settlement between the parties. At this stage, the Court can also be swayed by the fact that the settlement between the parties is going to result in harmony between them which may improve their future relationship."

7. The parameters given in para 29.6 in the instant case would not be attracted in this case, because it is a case of the applicant that though the fire was made but it never hit any person and even Priti was not injured and thus Section 307 of IPC would not be made out in order to bring it, for its consideration within the parameters provided under para 29.6 of the said judgment.

8. In order to answer the objection raised by the learned Government Advocate, the learned counsel for the applicant has drawn the attention to the contents of para 31 of Narender Singh's (supra), contending thereof that almost a similar set of circumstance, occurred in the matter of Narender Singh (supra) where the composition of the offence as committed under Section 307 was being sought at the stage when the charges have been framed and evidence of some of the witnesses have already been recorded.

9. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in para 31 has observed that the Court exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 of CrPC, in an event, if it satisfies the conditions of para 29.6 of Narendra Singh (supra), the stage of the proceedings of the trial would not effect and still it could be compounded by the Court by exercising its power under Section 482 of CrPC. Para 31 is extracted hereunder:-

"31. In the present case, FIR No.121 dated 14.7.2010 was registered under Section 307/324/323/34 IPC. Investigation was completed, whereafter challan was presented in the court against the petitioner herein. Charges have also been framed; the case is at the stage of recording of evidence. At this juncture, parties entered into compromise on the basis of which petition under Section 482 of the Code was filed by the petitioners namely the accused persons for quashing of the criminal proceedings under the said FIR. As per the copy of the settlement which was annexed along with the petition, the compromise took place between the parties on 12.7.2013 when respectable members of the Gram Panchayat held a meeting under the Chairmanship of Sarpanch. It is stated that on the intervention of the said persons/Panchayat, both the parties were agreed for compromise and have also decided to live with peace in future with each other. It was argued that since the parties have decided to keep harmony between the parties so that in future they are able to live with peace and love and they are the residents of the same village, the High Court should have accepted the said compromise and quash the proceedings."

10. The basic objective which was considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court was that since it is a dispute between the family members, the parties have compromised and settled their dispute and they want to live peacefully in future.

11. The peaceful living was one of the conditions also considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court for the purposes of composition of offence in order to bring harmony between the parties who are in dispute in a criminal proceeding.

12. Owing to the aforesaid principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Narender Singh (supra), it would be squarely covering the instant case which though will be a marginal different case because here it is not case of any injury being caused on respondent No. 3.

13. But since the offence being non compoundable under Section 307, the same would stand compounded subject to the following terms and conditions, that the offence under Section 307 would stand compounded in terms of the guidelines framed in Narendra Singh (supra) and the proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 27 of 2021, State Vs. Vikas @ Danveer, pending consideration before the Court of Additional District Judge, Laksar, would hereby stand quashed.

14. Accordingly, C482 Application would stand disposed of.

15. But, the composition of the offences and quashing of the proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 27 of 2021, State Vs. Vikas @ Danveer, since apparently it relates to the non-compoundable offence which will be compounded subject to following conditions:

"1. That the applicant would be planting 10 trees in an area to be identified by the Horticulture Department of his District to which he belongs, at his own cost.

2. The plantation of the trees would be made in the respective areas, from which he belongs, under the supervision of the Horticulture Department.

3. It is only upon the submission of the certificate of the planting of the 10 trees to be issued by the competent authority of the Horticulture Department, which has to be submitted before the competent court ceased with the criminal proceedings, its then only the proceedings would be dropped, in compliance of the today's order passed in the present C482 applications.

4. If the aforesaid compliance is not made within a period of one month from today, it will automatically result into the revival of the aforesaid criminal proceedings.

5. If at any stage, any Officer of the Horticulture Department is found to have issued a fraudulent certificate, he would be criminally dealt with in accordance with law."

16. Owing to above, the matter is compounded and the C482 Application would stand disposed of accordingly.

(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.) 01.08.2023 Mahinder/