Uttarakhand High Court
Virendra Kaur And Another ... vs State Of Uttarakhand & Another on 29 March, 2023
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No.763 of 2022
With
Compounding Application (IA No.2 of 2023)
Virendra Kaur and another .....Revisionists
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & another ........Respondents
Present:-
Mr. Vikas Anand, Advocate for the revisionists.
Mr. Lalit Miglani, A.G.A. for the State.
Mr. Saurabh Kumar Pandey, Advocate for respondent no. 2.
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
The challenge in this revision is made to the
followings:-
(i) Judgment and order dated
05.03.2021, passed in Criminal Case
No.2750 of 2017, Sunil vs. Smt.
Virendra Kaur & another, by the
court of Judicial Magistrate,
Khatima, District Udham Singh
Nagar (the case), by which the
revisionists have been convicted
under Sections 323 & 452 of IPC
and sentenced accordingly, and;
(ii) Judgment and order dated
29.09.2022, passed in Criminal
Appeal No. 85 of 2021, Smt.
Virendra Kaur & another vs. State
and another, by the court of First
Additional Sessions Judge, Udham
Singh Nagar. By it, the appeal has
been dismissed.
2. The revisionists and the respondent no. 2 have
filed a joint compounding application along with
affidavits.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the file.
4. Learned counsel for the revisionists and private
respondent would submit that the parties have amicably
settled the dispute. In fact, it is the revisionists who were
taken some loan from Non-Banking Financial Company,
in which the respondent no. 2, the complainant, is an
employer. When the money was demanded, revisionists
did not return it, thereafter, the offence was committed by
the revisionists. It is also submitted that another petition
under Section 354 of IPC was filed by the revisionist
no. 1-Virendra Kaur against the informant of the case.
5. Revisionists are in jail. They joined the
proceedings through Video Conferencing from Sub-Jail,
Haldwani. Respondent No.2-the informant is present
before the Court. They are identified by their respective
counsel. Respondent no. 2, the informant would submit
that they have settled the dispute amicably.
6. This is revision against conviction. Post
conviction under certain circumstances, compounding
may be permitted as held in the case of Ram Gopal &
another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh; 2021 SCC Online
SC 834, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as
hereunder:-
"19. We thus sum-up and hold that as opposed to
Section 320 Cr.P.C. where the Court is squarely guided
by the compromise between the parties in respect of
offences 'compoundable' within the statutory
framework, the extra-ordinary power enjoined upon a
High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or vested in this
Court under Article 142 of the Constitution, can be
invoked beyond the metes and bounds of Section 320
Cr.P.C. Nonetheless, we reiterate that such powers of
wide amplitude ought to be exercised carefully in the
context of quashing criminal proceedings, bearing in
mind : (i) Nature and effect of the offence on the
conscious of the society; (ii) Seriousness of the injury,
if any; (iii) Voluntary nature of compromise between
the accused and the victim; & (iv) Conduct of the
accused persons, prior to and after the occurrence of
the purported offence and/or other relevant
considerations.
20. Having appraised the afore-stated para-meters and
weighing upon the peculiar facts and circumstances of
the two appeals before us, we are inclined to invoke
powers under Article 142 and quash the criminal
proceedings and consequently set aside the conviction
in both the appeals. We say so for the reasons that:
Firstly, the occurrence(s) involved in these appeals
can be categorized as purely personal or having
overtones of criminal proceedings of private nature;
Secondly, the nature of injuries incurred, for which
the Appellants have been convicted, do not appear
to exhibit their mental depravity or commission of
an offence of such a serious nature that quashing of
which would override public interest;
Thirdly, given the nature of the offence and
injuries, it is immaterial that the trial against the
Appellants had been concluded or their appeal(s)
against conviction stand dismissed;
Fourthly, the parties on their own volition, without
any coercion or compulsion, willingly and
voluntarily have buried their differences and wish to
accord a quietus to their dispute(s);
Fifthly, the occurrence(s) in both the cases took
place way back in the years 2000 and 1995,
respectively. There is nothing on record to evince
that either before or after the purported
compromise, any untoward incident transpired
between the parties;
Sixthly, since the Appellants and the
complainant(s) are residents of the same village(s)
and/or work in close vicinity, the quashing of
criminal proceedings will advance peace, harmony,
and fellowship amongst the parties who have
decided to forget and forgive any ill-will and have no
vengeance against each other; and
Seventhly, the cause of administration of criminal
justice system would remain un-effected on
acceptance of the amicable settlement between the
parties and/or resultant acquittal of the Appellants;
more so looking at their present age."
7. Having considered the nature of offence and
other attending circumstances, this Court is of the view
that it is a case, which may be decided on the basis of
amicable settlement between the parties. Accordingly, the
revision deserves to be allowed.
8. The revision is allowed. Impugned judgment
and orders dated 05.03.2021 & 29.09.2022 are set-aside.
9. Revisionists are in jail. Let they be released
forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.
10. Compounding Application No.2 of 2023 stands
disposed of accordingly.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
29.03.2023
AK
