Uttarakhand High Court
Jagdish Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand on 6 September, 2024
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Compounding Application No. 3 of 2024.
In
Criminal Revision No. 436 of 2024
Jagdish Singh ........Revisionist
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ........Respondent
Present:-
Mr. Prabhat Bohra, Advocate, for the revisionist
through video conferencing.
Mr. M.A. Khan, A.G.A. for the State.
Mr. Akshay Joshi, Advocate for the injured.
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
Instant revision has been preferred against the
following:-
(1) Judgment and order dated 01.08.2023,
passed in Criminal Case No. 107 of 2018,
State Vs. Jagdish Singh, by the court of
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pithoragarh ("the
case). By it, the revisionist has been
convicted under Sections 279, 337, 338 IPC
and sentenced as hereunder:-
(i) Under Section 279 IPC-To undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a period of
six months.
(ii) Under Section 337 IPC- To undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a period of
six months.
(iii) Under Section 338 IPC- To undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a period of
two years and;
(2) Judgment and order dated 03.06.2024,
passed in Criminal Appeal No. 43 of 2023,
Jagdish Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhand, by
the court of Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh
("the appeal"). By it, the order passed in the
case was confirmed.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the record.
3. Learned counsel for the parties would submit that
the parties have amicably settled the dispute. Both the
injured Deepak Singh and Puran Singh have settled their
dispute.
4. A joint Compounding Application No. 3 of 2024
alongwith the affidavits of the parties have been filed.
5. The revisionist is in jail. He joined the proceedings
through video conferencing from Sitarganj Jail. The injured
Deepak Singh and Puran Singh have also joined the
proceedings through video conferencing, as identified by their
counsel. Parties have verified the compromise.
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 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."
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 01.08.2023 & 03.06.2024 are set-aside.
9. The revisionist is in jail. Let he be released
forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.
10. Compounding Application No.3 of 2024 stands
disposed of accordingly.
(Ravindra Maithani, J)
06.09.2024
Jitendra
