Saket Kumar vs State Of Uttarakhand & Another

R.C. Khulbe, J

The revision has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 13.03.2020, passed by learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge,

Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Appeal No.163 of 2012, Saket Kumar Vs. State of Uttarakhand, whereby the learned Appellate Court had

dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and order dated 27.06.2012 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar in

Criminal Case No.1840 of 2007 “State Vs. Narendra Dev and another†whereby revisionist has been convicted and sentenced to undergo one

year’s rigorous imprisonment under Section 324 and one year’s simple imprisonment under Section 506 of IPC.

The parties have filed a Compounding Application (CLMA No.1883 of 2020) jointly to show that the parties have buried their differences and have

settled their disputes amicably. It is also stated that the parties have entered into a compromise.

Learned counsel for the State although opposed the compounding application but fairly submitted that the case is compoundable with the permission

of the Court and keeping in view the nature of the case it can be compounded.

Section 506 of IPC is a compoundable offence within the scheme of Section 320 of Cr.P.C. whereas Section 324 of IPC is a non-compoundable

offence. However, the Hon’ble Apex Court’s in the case of Gyan Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in 2013(1) SCC Criminal 160, has

permitted compounding of such offences in order to maintain peace and harmony between the parties.

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as injured through video-conferencing.

Parties are present before the Court today and they are duly identified by their respective counsels.

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.â€​

In view of the aforesaid dictum of Hon’ble Supreme Court, the compounding application is allowed. As a consequence thereof, the impugned

judgment and order dated 13.03.2020, passed by learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Appeal No.163 of

2012, Saket Kumar Vs. State of Uttarakhand, whereby the learned Appellate Court had dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and order

dated 27.06.2012 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Case No.1840 of 2007 “State Vs. Narendra Dev

and another†are hereby set aside in respect of the revisionist, on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties. The conviction and

sentences recorded by the courts below against present revisionist are set aside. Accused-revisionist stand acquitted of the charge of Sections 324

and 506 of IPC. His bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged.

The criminal revision stands disposed of.

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.