Ajay Chauhan vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another

Ravindra Maithani, J

Petitioner seeks quashing of entire proceedings of Criminal Appeal No. 92 of 2019, Ajay Chauhan Vs. State and others pending in the court of Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar ("the appeal") on the basis of amicable settlement arrived at between the parties.

The matter is heard through video conferencing.

In fact, based on the complaint a criminal case no. 1141 of 2018, Shobha Chauhan Vs. Ajay Chauhan, was instituted in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar ("the case"). The case was decided on 13.02.2019 and petitioner has been convicted and sentenced under Section 494 IPC. This judgment and order dated 13.02.2019 passed in the case has been challenged in the appeal.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that parties have settled their dispute amicably, therefore, proceedings of the appeal may be quashed.

The scope of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 ('the Code') is undisputedly quite wide. The Court can grant permission for compounding of the offences, which are otherwise, not compoundable under Section 320 of the Code. The instant case is under Section 494 IPC, which according to Section 320 of the Code, is a compoundable offence with the permission of the Court. In the instant case, the petitioner has already been convicted and his appeal is pending before the Sessions Judge, in such exigency, sub Section 5 of Section 320 of the Code governs the field. The Section 320 (5) reads as under:

"320 Compounding of offences: - (1) The offences punishable under the sections of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) specified in the first two columns of the Table next following may be compounded by the person in the third column of that Table:

................

...............

(5) When the accused has been committed for trial or when he has been convicted and an appeal is pending, no composition for the offence shall be allowed without the leave of the Court to which he is committed, or, as the case may be, before which the appeal is to be heard."

In view of Section 320 (5) of the Code, petitioner may seek leave of the concerned Court for compounding, therefore, at this stage, this petition is not maintainable at all. For the above reasons, petition deserves to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly.