Back
2016 Supreme(UK) 737
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.
Bhagyan Das - Revisionist
Versus
State of Uttarakhand - Respondent
Compounding Application (CRMA 1937 of 2016) In Criminal Revision No. 168 of 2009
Decided On : 21-11-2016
For the Revisionist : Mr. Niranjan Bhatt
For the State/Respondent: Mr. G.S. Negi
For the Complainant : Mr. Virendra Singh Rawat
The social impact of the crime and the nature of the offence are decisive criteria for quashment power in compounding applications, as emphasized by the court.
Headnote:
Embezzlement - Criminal Compounding - The court rejected the compounding application for the offence under Section 420 IPC, considering the social impact of the crime and the nature of the offence. The court referred to the scope of Section 482 coupled with Section 320 CrPC as opined by the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 160, and emphasized the social impact of the crime as a decisive criterion for quashment power in such cases.
Fact of the Case:
The accused, a Government Servant, embezzled the amount meant for the development of poor villagers, leading to a criminal case against him. Both parties sought to compound the matter, but the court rejected the compounding application.
Finding of the Court:
The court rejected the compounding application, deeming the offence to have a social impact beyond the individual complainant, and upheld the decision of the lower courts, dismissing the revision.
Issues: Compounding application for the offence under Section 420 IPC, social impact of the crime, misuse of position by a Government Servant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the social impact of the crime and the nature of the offence, referring to the scope of Section 482 coupled with Section 320 CrPC as opined by the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 160.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision, upholding the decision of the lower courts, and directed the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Uttarkashi to ensure compliance with the orders.
Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.
Heard on the compounding application (CRMA 1937 of 2016). It is supported with the affidavit of accused/convict Bhagyan Das and the complainant Smt. Deveshwari Devi. Both the parties have appeared before this Court in person along with their respective Counsel and wanted to compound the matter.
2. In brief, the facts are that the Government granted the finance of Rs. 9800/- in the year 1991-92 under the Poor Persons Residential Scheme among others to Smt. Deveshwari Devi. Out of that amount, Rs. 4600/- were in the form of debt and the remaining Rs. 5200/- were in the form of assistance (not refundable) from the Government. Accused Bhagyan Das was working as Village Development Officer (V.D.O.) during the said scheme. The whole amount had to be withdrawn by the joint signatures of both these persons. Mr. Bhagyan Das misusing his position of a Government Servant procured the signature of Smt. Deveshwari Devi and misled her by making payment of only Rs. 4000/- and thus he embezzled rest of the amount for his personal benefits and gain.
3. When the matter was revealed, the lady Smt. Deveshwari Devi lodged the First Information Report. Investigation culminated into submission of the chargesheet and a Criminal Case No. 307/2006 was tried by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Uttarkashi. He found the offence under Section 420 to be proved against the accused/revisionist, but somehow he could not make out his opinion and absolved the accused for the offence under Section 409 IPC.
4. In Criminal Appeal No. 18/2008, preferred by the convict, learned Sessions Judge did not interfere with the finding of conviction. However, he modified the quantum of sentence by reducing it from two years’ rigorous imprisonment to one year, but sustained the imposition of fine.
5. Both these judgments were challenged by way of filing the instant revision no. 168 of 2009 before this Court, whereupon the convict got himself released on bail. Now, both the parties have entered into compromise.
6. Learned Counsel for the revisionist/applicant has argued that offence under Section 420 IPC is compoundable with the permission of the Court, and the lady now has entered into amicable settlement with the accused. So, their application should be accepted and the judgments of both the courts below should be set aside accordingly.
7. I am unable to agree with the above contention and reject the compounding application for the following reason.
8. The compounding of offence under Section 420 IPC with the permission of the Court is contemplated under Section 320 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Permission for the same cannot be given in every case, but the Court should exercise its discretion considering the gravity and nature of the offence. In this regard, a Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 160, while narrating the scope of Section 482 coupled with Section 320 CrPC, has opined that these powers should be exercised by the Court considering the social impact of the crime in question vis-à-vis its individual impact, as decisive criterion for quashment power in such cases. The criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil flavour stand on a different footing.
9. Had this been a case of purely an individual nature without having any social impact, then this Court would have thought for accepting such type of application. Since the accused was a Government Servant working as Village Development Officer and was authorised to withdraw the amount jointly with the beneficiary concerned, but he was found indulged in grabbing the amount meant for the development of the poor villagers in the manner stated hereinabove, therefore, I think it is not a case where it leads its effect only to the complainant Smt. Deveshwari Devi, but to the society at large.
10. It is the one case of embezzlement, which could be highlighted. Possibility of indulging in misuse of his position for grabbing
