Allowed

Ramnarayan Shrivas v. State Of C.g. and Anr.

Chhattisgarh HC8 Apr 2019WPCR/114/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226/227 CrPC, the High Court of Chhattisgarh examined an application to compound an offense under Section 354 IPC. Relying on settled disputes and Supreme Court precedents, the Court allowed the petition when charged parties are villagers seeking amicable relations, though Section 354 is generally non-compoundable.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings initiated against the petitioner for the offense under Section 354 IPC are hereby quashed.

Ramnarayan Shrivas Vs State Of C.g. and Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Chhattisgarh HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

Writ Petition (Cr.) No.114 of 2013

¶5

Ramnarayan Shrivas, S/o Koda Ram Shrivas, Aged about 27 years, R/o Fokatpara, Limtara, P.S. Masturi, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶6

---- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Chhattisgarh, Through P.S. Masturi, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶9

Smt. Rukhmani Sahu, W/o Krishna Kumar Sahu, Aged about 25 years, R/o Pahari Para, Limtara, P.S. Masturi, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) ---- Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner: Mrs. Swati Verma, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 / State: -

¶11

Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, Deputy Advocate General.

¶12

For Respondent No.2: -

¶13

Mr. Shashank Thakur, Advocate.

¶14

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal

¶15

Order On Board

¶16

08/04/2019

¶17

On the complaint of Smt. Rukhmani Sahu – respondent No.2 herein, an offence punishable under Section 354 of the IPC was registered against the petitioner. During the course of trial, the petitioner and respondent No.2 filed an application under Section 320 of the CrPC, as they both have sorted out their differences and decided to maintain good relations, which was rejected by the impugned order holding that the charged offence is not compoundable.

¶18

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 submit that the parties have settled their dispute amicably and in light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab 1 followed in the

¶19

1 (2012) 10 SCC 303

¶20

¶21

matter of Parbatbhai Aahir alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others v. State of Gujarat and another 2, the criminal case be closed and proceeding be quashed.

¶22

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their submissions and also gone through the record with utmost circumspection.

¶23

It is not in dispute that at the instance of respondent No.2 offence punishable under Section 354 of the IPC was registered against the petitioner in which they have filed affidavit that they are residents of same village and in order to maintain good relation, they wish to get the offence compounded.

¶24

In Parbatbhai Aahir alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur

¶25

(supra), the Supreme Court has held as under: -

¶26

“16.5. The decision as to whether a complaint or first information report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated.

¶27

16.6. In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences.”

¶28

Following the principle of law laid down in Parbatbhai Aahir alias

¶29

Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur (supra) and considering that respondent No.2 and the petitioner both are residents of same village and they both decided to settle the dispute amicably in order to 2 (2017) 9 SCC 641

¶30

¶31

maintain good relation and they have made statement on oath, the writ petition is allowed and the proceeding initiated against the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 354 of the IPC is hereby quashed. Parties shall bear their own costs.

¶32

Sd/(Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge

¶33

Soma

Ramnarayan Shrivas v. State Of C.g. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramnarayan Shrivas v. State Of C.g. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunil Kumar Sharma And Anr. Vs Mukesh Kumar Agrawal And Ors.

Ashok Kumar Paul Vs Vidya Shankar Aditya and Anr.

Krishnadutt Tiwari Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Jila Sahkari Krishi Gramin Vikas Bank Ltd. Vs Satyadev Mishra And Ors.

Smt. Veena Singh Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Anr.

Vinod Kumar Rathi Vs Sharad Chhitlangia