Uttarakhand High Court
Sharad Verma vs State And Another on 30 September, 2024
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Application No. 527 of 2024
Sharad Verma ......Petitioner
Versus
State and another ....Respondents
Present:
Mr. Raj Kumar Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Vipul Painuly, Brief Holder for the State.
Mr. Pramod Kumar, Advocate for respondent no.2.
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.(Oral)
By means of the instant petition, the petitioner
seeks quashing of the judgment and order dated
16.12.2021 passed in Case No.881 of 2020 (FIR/Crime
No.169 of 2013), State vs. Sharad Verma, by the court of
Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division)/Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar ("the
case"). By it, the petitioner has been convicted under
Sections 279 and 337 IPC and sentenced therein, on the
basis of amicable settlement between the parties. A joint
compounding application has been filed along with
affidavits.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would
submit that offence under Section 337 IPC is
compoundable. It is admittedly a case of negligence. The
informant had been duly compensated for amicably
settling the dispute.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would
submit that in view of the law, as laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Gopal &
another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh; 2021 SCC Online
SC 834, even after conviction, compounding of the
offence may be permitted. In the case of Ram Gopal
(supra), 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 4
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."
5. The petitioner as well as the respondent no.2,
the injured is present in person before the Court, as
identified by their respective counsel.
6. The Court particularly asked the respondent
no.2. He would submit that the mother of the petitioner
and other family members have tendered apology. All the
expenses have been borne by him during his treatment in
hospital. Therefore, he does not want to proceed with the
case. They have settled the dispute amicably.
7. Having considered the nature of offence and all
the attending factors, this Court is of the view that
instant case may also be decided based on amicable
settlement between the parties. Accordingly, the petition
deserves to be allowed.
8. Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed.
The judgment and order dated 16.12.2021 passed in the
case is hereby quashed. Resultantly, the petitioner shall
be deemed to have been acquitted of the charged offence
for all intents and purposes.
9. Compounding Application No.1 of 2024 stands
disposed of accordingly.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
30.09.2024
Ravi
