Raju vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others

Ravindra Maithani, J

Present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code) has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the entire proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 158 of 2015, under Sections 307, 323, 504 & 506 I.P.C., State Vs. Raju and others, pending in the court of Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar on the basis of amicable settlement between the parties.

A joint compounding application has also been filed by the petitioner and respondent no.2 and 3, who are the first informant and the injured respectively. The compounding application is supported by the affidavits of the petitioner Raju, as well as the respondent no.2 Parvesh Kumar. Petitioner is present in person before this Court duly identified by his counsel Mr. G.C. Lakhchura, Advocate. Respondent nos. 2 and 3 are also present in person before this Court duly identified by their counsel Mr. Deep Prakash Bhatt, Advocate. Petitioner and respondent nos. 2 and 3 have stated that they have amicably settled the dispute and do not want to proceed with the matter.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that the petitioner is brother-in-law of the respondent nos. 2 and 3. The wife of the petitioner is sister of these respondents. There was a dispute between the parties with regard to the strained relationship between the petitioner and his wife and on 21.04.2015, in a scuffle, which was ensued between the parties, the incident had happened. It is argued that now, the petitioner is staying with his wife and leading a happy married life. They have settled the dispute and want to live a normal peaceful life, therefore, compounding may be permitted. In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the principles of law, as laid down in the case of Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another (2014) 6 SCC 466 and State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others, AIR 2019 SC1296 and Criminal Misc. Application No. 661 of 2017, Paramveer Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

In the instant case, an FIR was lodged on 23.04.2015. According to it, the petitioner had strained relations with his wife, who happened to be the sister of the first informant. The petitioner was staying with some other woman in the locality and was conspiring against respondent nos. 2 and 3. On 21.04.2015 at 7.00 P.M., the petitioner assaulted the first informant and his brother, who are respondent no.2 and 3 respectively, and hit on the head of respondent no.3. He was taken to the hospital. After investigation, charge sheet has been submitted against the petitioner, under Section 307, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. Injury report has also been filed alongwith the counter affidavit.

The incident has its origin in the matrimonial discord between the petitioner and his wife. The petitioner and the respondent nos. 2 and 3 are really very close relatives and the point, which attracts both the parties, is the wife of the petitioner, who is stated to be the sister of respondent nos. 2 and 3.

In the case of Narinder Singh (supra), the Hon'ble Court has laid down the guidelines under which offence under Section 307 may be compounded, which is as hereunder:

" 29.6 Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore is to be generally treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to proving the charge under Section 307IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc. Medical report in respect of injuries suffered by the victim can generally be the guiding factor. On the basis of this prima facie analysis, the High Court can examine as to whether there is a strong possibility of conviction or the chances of conviction are remote and bleak. In the former case it can refuse to accept the settlement and quash the criminal proceedings whereas in the later case it would be permissible for the High Court to accept the plea compounding the offence based on complete settlement between the parties. At this stage, the Court can also be swayed by the fact that the settlement between the parties is going to result in harmony between them which may improve their future relationship."

In the case of Paramveer Singh (supra), this Court has also permitted compounding of offence under Section 307 I.P.C. observing that parties have settled their dispute.

In the case of State of Laxmi Narayan (supra) in para 13 (iv), the Hon'ble Court has laid down the guidelines.

In Yogendra Yadav Vs. State of Jharkhand and others, (2014) 9SCC 653, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, under the facts and circumstances of the case, while referring to the principle of law, as laid down in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another, (2012) 10 SCC 303, permitted compounding of offence under Section 307 I.P.C.

Though, in the instant case, charge sheet has also been filed under Section 307 I.P.C., but as stated, the origin of it is the matrimonial discord. Parties are closed relatives and they have settled the dispute. The petitioner is staying with his wife, who is the sister of respondent nos. 2 and 3. This Court is of the view that if the trial is allowed to continue, possibilities of the conviction may definitely be remote and bleak and it would not serve any purpose, as such, therefore, the petition may be decided on the basis of the settlement between the parties and the proceedings may be quashed.

Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed. The entire proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 158 of 2015, under Sections 307, 323, 504 & 506 I.P.C., State Vs. Raju and others, pending in the court of Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar are hereby quashed.

Compounding Application being CRMA No.783 of 2019 stands disposed of accordingly.