SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Vineet Kumar @ Jintendra Kumar vs State Of Uttarakhand & Another on 17 September, 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
NAINITAL

Crl. Misc. Application (C-482) No.1901 of 2019
With
Compounding Application no. 2706 of 2019

Vineet Kumar @ Jintendra Kumar …Applicant

versus

State of Uttarakhand another…. Respondents

Mr. Mukesh Kumar Kaparuwan, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Mr. Lalit Miglani, learned Brief Holder for the State.
Mr. A.C. Saklani, learned counsel for the private respondent.

Hon’ble R.C. Khulbe, J.

By way of present application, moved
under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., applicant seeks to
quash the S.T. No. 95 of 2018, SectionState vs. Vineet
Kumar @ Jitendra Kumar, u/s, 363, 366-A, 376
of SectionIPC and Section 5/6 of POCSO Act, pending in
the court of Special Judge, POCSO, Haridwar.

2. The parties have filed a Compounding
Application No. 2706 of 2019 to show that the
parties have buried their differences and have
settled their disputes amicably.

3. It is contended by learned counsel for
the applicant that the offences punishable under
Sections 363, Section366-A, Section376 of IPC and Section 5/6
of POCSO Act are not compoundable offences.

4. It is further contended by learned
counsel for the applicant that the present
applicant got married with the prosecutrix and
are living together as husband and wife and

1
enjoying the married life.

5. On the other hand, it is argued by
learned counsel for the State that the offence is
heinous in nature; hence, opposed the
compounding application.

6. There is no evidence on record to prove
that the prosecutrix was minor at the time of
occurrence, apart from that there is no evidence
on record that the accused has committed rape
with the prosecutrix. Hence the offences under
Section 376 IPC and under Section 5/6 of POCSO
Act are not made out.

7. The Apex Court has dealt with the
consequence of a compromise in regard to non-
compoundable offences in the case of SectionB.S.Joshi
and others vs. State of Haryana and another,
(2003) 4 SCC 675 and has held as below:-

“If for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, quashing
of FIR becomes necessary, Section 320 Cr.P.C. would not
be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing. It is, however,
a different matter depending upon the facts and
circumstances of each case whether to exercise or not such a
power.”

Thus, the High Court, in exercise of its
inherent power can quash criminal proceedings or
FIR or complaint and Section 320 of Cr.P.C. does
not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

8. Hon’ble Supreme Court has permitted
compounding of such offences in the decision of
SectionNikhil Merchant v. CBI and another, (2008) 9
SCC 650.

9. Learned counsel for the parties also
drew the attention of this Court towards the
ruling of SectionGian Singh v. State of Punjab and
another, (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 160, in which

2
Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as below:

“The position that emerges from the above
discussion can be summarised thus: the
power of the High Court in quashing a
criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in
exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct
and different from the power given to a
criminal court for compounding the offences
under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent
power is of wide plenitude with no statutory
limitation but it has to be exercised in accord
with the guideline engrafted in such power
viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to
prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In
what cases power to quash the criminal
proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be
exercised where the offender and victim have
settled their dispute would depend on the
facts and circumstances of each case and no
category can be prescribed. However, before
exercise of such power, the High Court must
have due regard to the nature and gravity of
the crime. Heinous and serious offences of
mental depravity or offences like murder,
rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed
even though the victim or victim’s family and
the offender have settled the dispute. Such
offences are not private in nature and have
serious impact on society. Similarly, any
compromise between the victim and offender
in relation to the offences under special
statutes like SectionPrevention of Corruption Act or
the offences committed by public servants
while working in that capacity etc; cannot
provide for any basis for quashing criminal
proceedings involving such offences. But the
criminal cases having overwhelmingly and
pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on
different footing for the purposes of quashing,
particularly the offences arising from
commercial, financial, mercantile, civil,
partnership or such like transactions or the
offences arising out of matrimony relating to
dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the
wrong is basically private or personal in
nature and the parties have resolved their
entire dispute. In this category of cases, High
Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its
view, because of the compromise between the
offender and victim, the possibility of
conviction is remote and bleak and
continuation of criminal case would put
accused to great oppression and prejudice
and extreme injustice would be caused to him
by not quashing the criminal case despite full
and complete settlement and compromise
with the victim. In other words, the High
Court must consider whether it would be

3
unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to
continue with the criminal proceeding or
continuation of the criminal proceeding would
tantamount to abuse of process of law despite
settlement and compromise between the
victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure
the ends of justice, it is appropriate that
criminal case is put to an end and if the
answer to the above question(s) is in
affirmative, the High Court shall be well
within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal
proceeding.”

10. The instant case is squarely covered by
the above ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
The obvious reply to the question posed above is
in the affirmative in view of the ruling of Hon’ble
Apex Court in Gian Singh’s case (supra).

11. Parties are present before the Court
today and they are duly identified by their
respective counsels.

12. Considering the nature of the case is
that there is no evidence on record regarding
under Section 376 IPC and under Sections 5/6
POCSO Act and considering the view that both
the parties are living together as husband and
wife. Hence, it is a fit case for compounding.

13. Accordingly, compounding application
is allowed. The S.T. No. 95 of 2018, SectionState vs.
Vineet Kumar @ Jitendra Kumar, u/s, 363, 366-
A, 376 of SectionIPC and Section 5/6 of POCSO Act,
pending in the court of Special Judge, POCSO,
Haridwar, are hereby quashed qua the present
applicant, on the basis of compromise arrived at
between the parties.

14. Present C482 application stands
disposed of, as above.

4

15. Pending applications, if any, also stand
disposed of accordingly.

(R.C. Khulbe, J.)
Dt. September 17, 2019
Balwant

5

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation