Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
RAKESH THAPLIYAL, J.
Naseem and Others – Appellants
Versus
State of Uttarakhand – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 403 of 2021
Decided On : 03-10-2024
(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 323, 342, 367 - Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 3(1)(h) - Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976 - Section 16 - Conviction of appellants for various offences with sentences including imprisonment and fines - Compounding application filed post-conviction - Court allowed compounding based on amicable settlement among parties, emphasizing the nature of offences as personal and non-heinous - The court exercised inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings, citing precedents that allow for quashing non-compoundable offences under certain circumstances. (Paras 1, 18)
(B) Compounding of offences - The court noted that offences under special statutes can be compounded if they are primarily private in nature and do not contravene the objectives of the statute. (Paras 16, 17)
(C) Judicial discretion - The court highlighted the importance of judicial discretion in quashing proceedings based on compromise, considering the nature of the offences and the conduct of the parties. (Paras 12, 19)
Facts of the case:
The appellants were convicted for offences under IPC and special statutes, with sentences including imprisonment and fines. A compounding application was filed, supported by affidavits from the appellants and injured parties, indicating a compromise.
Findings of Court:
The court allowed the compounding application, set aside the trial court's judgment, and deemed the appellants acquitted.
Issues: The main issues included whether the offences could be compounded post-conviction and the nature of the offences.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that non-heinous offences can be quashed based on compromise, emphasizing the need to secure the ends of justice.
Result: The appeal was disposed of in favor of the appellants.
JUDGMENT :
RAKESH THAPLIYAL, J.
1. The instant criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 27.11.2021 passed in Special Sessions Trial No. 03 of 2018 State vs. Naseem and Others, whereby, the present appellants have been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 342, 367 of IPC. The sentence as awarded for the offence punishable under Sections 323 r/w Section 34 is six months simple imprisonment and for section 342 one year simple imprisonment and for section 367 five years simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 20,000/-.
2. Apart from this, the appellants have also been convicted under Section 3(1)(h) of S.C./S.T. Act for which each of the appellants have been awarded three years simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 20,000/-. In addition to this, the appellants have also been convicted for the offences punishable under Section 16 of Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976, for which each of the appellants have been sentenced for three years simple imiprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. This appeal was admitted on 10.12.2021 and subsequently all the appellants were enlarged on bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court by an order dated 06.01.2022.
3. Now, the compounding application No. IA 3 of 2022 has been filed for seeking composition of offences for which they have been convicted by the Trial Court. Consequently, on the compounding application the State was directed to file their objection by an order dated 29.11.2022. Now, the objection has been filed by the State. The compounding application has been moved, which is supported with the affidavits of each of the appellant as well as supported with the affidavit of injured Monu, injured Sonu and injured Kishori Devi.
4. In paragraph-10 of the compounding application it is contended that the appellants as well as the complainant and the injured are the residents of the same locality and during the pendency of the present appeal with interference of some elderly respective persons of the locality the parties have entered into a compromise and agreed to live peacefully.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants, apart from this, also submits that in fact there was some private dispute in between the parties; however, instead of resolving those disputes the unfortunate incident was happened and the FIR has been lodged. It is submitted that now since the appellants, complainant and the injured persons are living in the same locality and have known to each other; therefore, in order to maintain law and harmony in between them the offences in which they have been convicted be compounded.
6. The State in their objection submits that after thorough investigation the charge-sheet was filed and the prosecution witnesses supported the incident and when a particular question was put on State Counsel about the injuries he fairly submits that all the injuries are simple in nature. The State counsel also submits that so far as the panel provision under IPC is concerned the offences punishable under Section 367 in which the appellants have been convicted is non-compoundable; however, he submits that with the permission of the court this offence can be compounded and particularly since the appellants have been convicted; therefore, in view of Section 320(5) of Cr.P.C. the offences can be compounded with the leave of the court.
7. Apart from this, the State counsel have not disputed this fact that all the appellants and the respondent/complainant and the injured are living in the same locality and after the said incident they are not involved in any such criminal activity and their relations with the complainant and the injured are very cordial. So far as the offences punishable under Section SC/ST Act and the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976 is concerned, it is submitted it is a special Act and is not covered by Section 320 of Cr.P.C. however with the permission of the court on the basis of amicable settlement the same can also be compounded
AI
The court can quash non-compoundable offences post-conviction if the parties have reached a compromise, provided the offences are not heinous and do not contravene the objectives of special statutes.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that even if an offense is non-compoundable, the court may allow the appeal to be compounded in cases involving a personal nature of dispute, peace....
High Court can quash post-conviction for non-heinous private offences like grievous hurt upon family compromise using inherent powers to ensure harmony and justice.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
