Hayat Singh & Anr vs State Of Uttarakhand & Anr

Lok Pal Singh, J.

This is restoration application being MCRC No.166 of 2018 moved by the applicants/revisionists to recall the order dated 29.08.2018 and to restore the revision to its original number.

Heard and perused the affidavit accompanying the restoration application.

For the reasons stated, restoration application is allowed. Order dated 29.08.2018 is recalled. Criminal revision is restored to its original number.

Urgency application IA No.9277 of 2018 is allowed.

This criminal revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 5.3.2009 passed by Sessions Judge, Bageshwar in criminal appeal no.11 of 2007 as well as the judgment and order dated 31.8.2007 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bageshwar in criminal case no.304 of 2006, whereby the revisionists have been convicted under Section 452 of IPC and have been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six month with fine of Rs.1,000/-. Revisionists have further been convicted under Section 323 of IPC and have been sentenced to payment of fine of Rs.500/-.

A compounding application being CRMA No.11094 of 2018 has been jointly moved on behalf of the revisionists and respondent no.2 as well as injured of the case to indicate that during the pendency of present criminal revision, the revisionists and respondent nos.2 and 3 (injured) have amicably settled the dispute outside the court and have arrived at into a compromise. Compounding application is duly supported by respective affidavits of the parties. Compromise deed is also annexed with the compounding application, as Annexure No.1.

Offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC is a compoundable offence within the scheme of Section 320 of Cr.P.C., whereas Section 452 of IPC is a non-compoundable offence.

Learned counsel for the parties drew the attention of this Court towards the ruling of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another, (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 160, in which Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as below:

"The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."

In view of the aforesaid dictum of Hon'ble Supreme Court, the compounding application is allowed. Injured and respondent no.2 are permitted to compound the offences proved against the convict-revisionists. As a consequence thereof, judgment and order dated 5.3.2009 passed by Sessions Judge, Bageshwar in criminal appeal no.11 of 2007 as well as the judgment and order dated 31.8.2007 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bageshwar in criminal case no.304 of 2006, are hereby set aside in respect of the revisionists, on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties. The conviction and sentences recorded by the courts below against present revisionists are set aside. Accused-revisionists stand acquitted of the charge of Sections 452 and 323 of IPC. Revisionists are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged. They need not surrender.

The criminal revision stands disposed of.

Let a copy of this Judgment be sent to the court below for compliance.