Uttarakhand High Court
C482/1808/2023 on 6 October, 2023
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
proceedings or
Sl. No Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
IA No.01 of 2023 (Compounding Application)
In
C482 No.1808 of 2023
with
C482 No.1943 of 2023
Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
Mr. Vikas Singh Yadav, Advocate, for
the applicants.
Mr. V.K. Gemini, D.A.G. for the State of
Uttarakhand.
Mr. Aayush Gaur, Advocate, for the
respondent.
These are the two C482 applications.
They are based upon same facts, and are arising
out of the same set of allegations, as it was
referred to in the FIR No.252, dated
27.05.2023, as registered at Police Station
Bazpur, District Udham Singh Nagar, for the
involvement of the named accused persons,
which in the C482 No.1808 of 2023, they are
two in numbers, whereas in the connected C482
No.1943 of 2023, all the other co-accused
persons referred to in the FIR, who are five in
numbers, have preferred the C482 applications.
In the FIR, there had been certain set of
allegations pertaining to the commission of the
offence under sections 147, 148, 323, 504 and
506 of IPC, and under section 3 (1) (x) of the
SC and ST Act. It shows that some minor
altercations did took place on 27.05.2023, as
commonly involved in both the C482
applications, on account of certain political
dispute with regards to the extension of the
candidature for contesting the election of the
Pradhan of Village Bazpur.
Upon investigation, the Chargesheet
No.299 of 2023, dated 12.07.2023, has been
submitted by the Investigating Officer, based
on which, the proceedings of the Special
Sessions Trial No.611 of 2023, "State Vs. Naim
Ahmad and others", stood instituted before the
court of Special Sessions Judge, Udham Singh
Nagar, whereby, the applicants have been
summoned to be tried under sections 147, 148,
323, 504 and 506 of IPC, and under section 3
(1) (x) of the SC and ST Act.
All the parties are present in person
before this Court, they have been duly
identified by the their respective counsels for
the applicants. The complainant/respondent
No.2, who is common in both the C482
applications, is too present in person.
This Court has interacted with him, and
he has submitted that since there was a minor
altercation which has taken place owing to the
political rivalry, which normally persisted in
the village, the incident as complained of in the
FIR, was said to have been chanced, and he
submitted that now they have resolved their
dispute in terms of the respective compounding
applications, which has been filed along with
two C482 applications, almost referring to the
same terms and conditions for the composition
of the offences.
Both the compounding applications have
respectively contained the affidavits filed by the
applicants, as well as the complainant, giving
the terms and conditions under which the
parties have settled their dispute, and
particularly, the compromise dated 23.09.2023,
which too happens to be common in both the
C482 applications.
Learned Government Advocate opposes
the compounding application on the ground that
since it happens to be an offence under section
3 (1) (x) of the SC and ST Act, it ought not to
be compounded by this Court by exercising its
inherent powers under 482 of the CrPC. Apart
from the fact that since it is a village rivalry,
and all the persons i.e. applicants and the
complainant are the natives of the same village,
the long drawn criminal litigation has had to be
brought to an end, and that too particularly
when it's relates to the offences, which are
compoundable under section 320 of the CrPC.
The contention raised by the applicants
with regards to the commission of the offence
against the scheduled caste may not be
exclusively sustainable for the reason being,
that if the FIR is taken into consideration, as it
is commonly related in both the cases, though
the offences are shown to have been committed
at a public place, but it does not satisfy the
ingredients provided under paragraph 6 of the
judgment of "Gorige Pentaiah Vs State Of A.P"
as reported in 2008 (12) SCC 531, as the FIR
doesn't finds any reference made by the
complainant that the person extending the caste
related remarks or expressions belongs to a
person of superior caste.
Thus the argument of the learned
Government Advocate would stand rejected on
this ground itself, and particularly, from the
more wider prospective that since this happens
to be a normal dispute which arisen out of the
political rivalry, and more particularly when the
person, who is said to have been insulted the
complainant, who is present before this Court,
has made a statement that they have entered
into a settlement, and he admits the fact of the
settlement dated 23.09.2023. This Court is of
the view that continuance of the proceedings
would be rather forcing the parties to the C482
application to litigate in the criminal case,
which should not be an endeavour of the Courts
exercising the inherent powers, because it
simultaneously owes the responsibility to end a
litigation, which may not be having ultimately a
serious consequences or which may not result
into a positive conviction.
Since in the instant case there happens to
be a compromise, the complainant is not
interested to prosecute the present applicants
any further.
Since there is a possibility of the hostility
of the witnesses, when the actual trial is taken
on its merit, it would be an act of the futility to
keep the criminal proceedings pending inter se
between the parties. Thus, the C482
applications would stand allowed, and as a
consequence thereto, the proceedings of the
Special Sessions Trial No.611 of 2023, "State
Vs. Naim Ahmad and others", as commonly
involved in both the C482 applications, would
hereby stand quashed.
(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.)
06.10.2023
NR
