Samresh Sana vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Ravindra Maithani, J

Petitioner seeks quashing of the summoning order dated 13.12.2019 as well as the entire proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 248 of 2019, State Vs. Samresh Sana, pending in the court of Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar (for short " the case"). It is case under Sections 307, 504 and 506 IPC. In the petition, it is stated that the petitioner repent his actions and day spent by the petitioner in jail will always remain a mark of change in the life of the applicant.

Heard learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing.

In this case FIR was lodged by the father of the petitioner. According to the FIR, the petitioner used to intoxicate. On 31.08.2019 at 1:30 in the afternoon, he under intoxication, threatened to kill the informant and his wife and when the wife of the informant objected to it, he hit her on her head and thereafter, while abusing them left the house. It is this FIR, in which, after investigation, charge sheet has been submitted.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that parents of the petitioner are in very bad shape; they are financially drained; they belong to much weaker section of the society, very poor and the only source of income was their son, who is in jail for a year. The son was a drug addict and in heat of rage, he did the act. Now, the parents want him back.

It is a case under Section 307 IPC. A son hit his mother. The injury was on her head though it was detected as simple in nature. A compounding application has been filed that parties have settled the dispute now. The Court on 16.09.2020 postponed the hearing of the matter so that the Court may interact with the petitioner.

Today, the petitioner Samresh Rana joined the proceedings from Sub-Jail, Haldwani. When the Court asked him as to why he is in jail, he said that his mother had a fall and when he went to pick her up, she thought that it is the petitioner who had hit her. The petitioner has no remorse or repentance of any action done by him. He appears to be still rebel.

In fact, learned counsel for the petitioner also interacted with him, but still he reiterated that his mother had a fall, he did not attack her.

It is most unfortunate that a mother, who was allegedly attacked by her son seeks that her son would come back. The father, who lodged the FIR had pardoned his son. May be due to the circumstances in which they are in, their poverty. The children of the petitioner are also staying with the informant and with the injured. But, the son, the petitioner is still very tough. He did not interact with the Court to say that he wants to settle the dispute. He has not said anything. On behalf of him many things are being said. Very lofty words are written in the petition. But, it appears that they do not emanate from the petitioner.

In this case, on the one hand, the welfare of the informant, his wife the victim and wife and children of the petitioner, is being exhibited to get the matter compounded, so that the petitioner may be released and he may feed his family. But, the Court is apprehensive. Suppose the petitioner has done the act as alleged, and he is still rebel; he has no repentance; what if tomorrow, he commits very serious offence in the family. May it be a counterproductive? The Court cannot guess it. Therefore, this Court declines permission to compound these offences and the petition deserves to be dismissed.

The petition is dismissed.

Compounding Application No. 3235 of 2020 also stands dismissed.