Partly allowed

Surinder Singh v. State

Himachal Pradesh HC7 Apr 2015CR.R/66/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision, the High Court of Himachal Pradesh set aside the petitioner's conviction and acquitted him. The court accepted a compromise between the petitioner and the complainant, relying on the Supreme Court in Gian Singh versus State of Punjab. Despite non-compoundable charges, the High Court invoked inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings to secure ends of jus

What did the court decide?

The impugned judgment of conviction was set aside, the revision petition was disposed of as settled, and the accused was acquitted.

Surinder Singh Vs State — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Himachal Pradesh HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA

¶2

Cr. Revision No. 66 of 2013

¶3

Date of Decision: 7/4/2015

¶4

Surinder Singh …..Petitioner

¶5

Versus State of H.P ….Respondent.

¶6

Coram:

¶7

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sureshwar Thakur, Judge .

¶8

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶9

For the petitioner: Ms. Neha Scott, Advocate, vice counsel of Mr. Anup Chitkara, Advocate.

¶10

For the Respondent: Mr. Vivek Singh Attri, Deputy Advocate General.

¶11

Sureshwar Thakur, J (oral)

¶12

The complainant, who is present in the Court today, lodged an FIR bearing No. 57/2006 of 28.8.2006, under Sections 498-A and 494 of Indian Penal Code, with Police Station, Renuka Ji, District Sirmaur, H.P., in

¶13

1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶14

…2…

¶15

pursuance thereto the petitioner/accused stands convicted by the Court below.

¶16

Through the instant petition, the petitioner seeks setting aside the impugned judgment of conviction rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sirmaur in affirmation to the judgment rendered by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Rajgarh.

¶17

On the previous date, a statement was made by the counsel for the petitioner that there is possibility of an amicable settlement being arrived at inter-se the accused and the complainant. For recording of the statement of both the accused and the complainant, Court notices were issued for ensuring their presence before this Court. Today the complainant in her statement, reduced into writing and signatured by her, has portrayed that she has compromised the matter with the accused and that to maintain inter-se cordiality, the judgment of conviction recorded by the Courts below against the accused/petitioner be set aside. The desire and aspiration

¶18

…3…

¶19

of the petitioner/accused and the complainant to promote inter se cordiality ought not to be frustrated rather it ought to be revered.

¶20

Further more, even though some offences constituted in the FIR may not be compoundable, hence, obviously theirs being settled through a deed of compromise may also not be permissible. However, in the face of a verdict of the Hon’ble Apex Court in a judgment reported in Gian Singh Versus State of Punjab & another ,

¶21

(2012) 10 SCC 303, the relevant paragraph whereof is extracted hereinafter mandating that where the victim of the offence and the accused come to record a settlement/strike a compromise even qua offences which are not compoundable , hence would rather not pave way for the success of the complaint/prosecution rather the prosecution of the offender for his having committed the alleged non-compoundable offences, would be an exercise in futility, is a preponderant and preeminent factor

¶22

…4…

¶23

to be borne in mind by this Court while exercising the plenary jurisdiction vested in it under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶24

“58. Where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that the dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled although the offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. No doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful effect on the public and consist in wrongdoing that seriously endangers and threats the well being of the society and it is not safe to leave the crime-doer only because he and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the victim has been paid compensation, yet certain crimes have been made compoundable in law, with or without the permission of the Court. In respect of serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., or other offences of mental depravity under IPC or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by the public servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between the

¶25

…5…

¶26

offender and the victim can have no legal sanction at all. However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to the victim and the offender and the victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or FIR if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated. The above list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Each case will depend on its own facts and no hard-and-fast category can be prescribed.”

¶27

As such, when it is mandated therein that to secure/restore peace and put the dispute inter se the victim of the offence and the accused to rest, the courts of law can proceed to accept the settlement even when some of

¶28

…6…

¶29

the offences constituted in the FIR are non-compoundable. Revering the verdict of the Hon’ble Apex Court, this Court accepts the joint proposal of the petitioner/accused and complainant to settle/compromise the dispute comprised in the FIR even when some of the offences constituted therein are not compoundable. Consequently, while accepting the compromise, evidenced in their respective statements recorded before this Court, the impugned judgment of conviction is set aside and the revision petition stands disposed of as settled. The accused stands acquitted.

¶30

7^th April, 2015 (priti)

¶31

( Sureshwar Thakur ),

¶32

Judge.

Surinder Singh v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surinder Singh v. State

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

Sapna Devi Vs State of Hp

Janam Singh Vs State of Hp

Sher Singh Vs State of Hp

Bablu Sahi Vs State of Hp

Kuldeep Kumar Vs State of Hp

Des Raj Vs Satish Chand