C482/1014/2010 of BACHAN SINGH AND ANR Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ANR on 31 December 2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL-Criminal Misc. Application (C482) No. 1014 of 2010

Bachan Singh & another …………. Applicants

versus

State of Uttarakhand & another …………. Respondents Mr. R.K.S. Verma, Advocate for the applicants. Mr. P.S. Saun with Mr. Vipul Painuli, AGAs for State / respondent no. 1. Mr. Niranjan Bhatt, Advocate for respondent no. 2.

U.C. Dhyani, J. (oral)[

The applicants, by means of present

application / petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seek to quash the charge-sheet dated 29.08.2010 and summoning order dated 09.09.2010, as also the entire proceedings of criminal case no. 757 of 2010, State vs. Bachan Singh and others, under Sections 498A, 323 of IPC and Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act, relating to police station, Dharasu, District Uttarkashi, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Uttarkashi.

2) Informant (respondent no. 2 herein) lodged an FIR against three named accused persons, including the applicants, at police station, Dharasu, District Uttarkashi, on 23.12.2008, which was registered under Sections 498A, 323 of IPC. Cognizance was taken on the said charge-sheet and accused persons were summoned to face the trial in respect of offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323 of IPC and Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Aggrieved against the same, present application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. was filed.

3) Applicant no. 1 is father-in-law and applicant no. 2 is mother-in-law of respondent no. 2. Learned counsel for the applicants stated that the parties have settled their dispute amicably. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicants placed a copy of the judgment rendered by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Uttarkashi on 12.10.2011, passed in criminal case no. 305 of 2011, captioned as State vs Sandeep Singh Ramola, who is the husband of respondent no. 2. Learned counsel stated that when the father-in-law and mother-in-law of respondent no. 2 filed present application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the proceedings against them were stayed, vide order dated 25.10.2010, passed by this Court, but the proceedings against the husband of respondent no. 2 were continuing in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Uttarkashi. On the basis of compromise entered into between the parties, husband of respondent no. 2 was exonerated of the charges levelled against him under Sections 498A, 323 of IPC and Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

4) Had the present applicants faced trial alongwith husband of respondent no. 2, their criminal case would have met the same fate, as was met by the husband of respondent no. 2.

5) It was clearly indicated in internal page no. 2 of the judgment dated 12.10.2011, that Pooja (victim) stated in her examination-in-chief, that the parties have settled their dispute amicably and she does not want to prosecute the accused persons. She said that now there was no misunderstanding between her, her husband and other family members of the husband.

6) In such a situation, it will be a futile exercise to keep the proceedings of criminal case pending against the present applicants, in which the main accused (husband) has already been acquitted of the charges levelled against him on the basis of compromise. When the victim herself is not keen to prosecute the accused persons (applicants), no purpose will be served by keeping the criminal case pending against them.

7) Offence under Section 323 of IPC is compoundable offence within the scheme of Section 320 of Cr.P.C. Offence under Section 498A of IPC and ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act are non-compoundable offences, but such offences can be compounded in view of the pronouncement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another, (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 160.

8) Application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is, therefore, allowed. Charge-sheet dated 29.08.2010 and summoning order dated 09.09.2010, as also the entire proceedings of criminal case no. 757 of 2010, State vs. Bachan Singh and others, under Sections 498A, 323 of IPC and Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act, relating to police station, Dharasu, District Uttarkashi, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Uttarkashi are hereby quashed qua applicants.

(U.C. Dhyani, J.)

Dt. December 31, 2013. Negi