State of Hp Vs Raj Kumar

¶1

( 2025:HHC:14209 )

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

Cr. Revision No.181 of 2024 Reserved on: 02.05.2025 Date of Decision: 16.05.2025

¶4

State of H.P. ...Petitioner/State

¶5

Versus Raj Kumar ...Respondent

¶6

Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla , Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹ No. For the Petitioner/State : Mr. Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General. For the Respondent : None.

¶7

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

¶8

The present revision petition is directed against the order dated 04.01.2024, passed by learned Special Judge, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (H.P.) vide which the respondents (accused before the learned Trial Court) were discharged. (The parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience).

¶9

2 . Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the police presented a charge sheet against the respondent/accused for the commission of offences punishable

¶10

1

¶11

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

¶12

2 ( 2025:HHC:14209 )

¶13

under Section 506 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) & Sections 3(1)(r), 3 (1)(s), 3 (1) za (A) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (SC & ST), 1989. It was asserted that the informant- Jagdish Lal was repairing the road on 01.11.2019 at about 01:00 pm, when Raj Kumar @ Boby and his wife Sunita Devi came to the spot armed with Khukhri. They asked the informant party to leave the place as they would not give any road to Gujjars & Julahas. They also said that the informant party would have to remove their shoes/slippers while using the road and the people of low caste had no right to use the road. They attacked Rattan Singh with Khukhri. He also threatened to kill the user of the road. The police registered the FIR, conducted the investigation and filed the charge sheet before the learned Trial Court after the completion of the investigation.

¶14

The learned Trial Court found sufficient reasons to frame charges against the accused Raj Kumar for the commission of offences punishable under Section 506 of IPC & Section 3(1) (r), 3 (1)(s), 3 (1) za (A) and 3(2)(va) of the SC & ST Act to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

¶15

3 ( 2025:HHC:14209 )

¶16

The prosecution examined Rangeel Singh (PW1), Rattan Singh (PW2) and Jaspal Singh (PW3). The matter was listed for recording the statements of prosecution witnesses on 19.12.2023 when it was observed that the informant in the present FIR and the accused had settled the matter and agreed to withdraw the litigation. Hence, the record of the case titled State vs. Chanchal Singh etc. (Case No.12-II of 2021), pending before the Court of learned JMFC, Court No.2, Ghumarwin was ordered to be requisitioned.

¶17

It was ordered on 04.01.2024 that the parties had agreed to withdraw the litigation initiated by them. FIR No.206 of 2019 and FIR No.207 of 2019 arose from the same incident. No case was made out, which if unrebutted would warrant the conviction of the accused. Hence, the accused in the present case were ordered to be acquitted.

¶18

Being aggrieved from the order passed by the learned Trial Court, the State has filed the present revision asserting that the learned Trial Court erred in passing the order. The compromise between the parties was not sufficient to acquit the accused. Learned Special Judge had no jurisdiction to permit the

¶19

4 ( 2025:HHC:14209 )

¶20

composition of the offence. Statements of Rangeel Singh (PW1), Rattan Singh (PW2) and Jaspal Singh (PW3) proved the commission of the offences. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the order passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside.

¶21

The notice of the petition was issued to the respondent-accused, who did not appear on 10.09.2024 despite service. It was noticed on 06.11.2024, that there was no appearance on behalf of the accused, even though the Power of Attorney stood filed. None appeared on behalf of the respondent-accused on 02.05.2025 as well when the matter was listed for hearing.

¶22

I have heard Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for the petitioner-State, who submitted that the learned Trial Court had no jurisdiction to pass the order of acquittal based on the compromise between the parties. Once the charges were framed, the learned Trial Court was bound to proceed as per the law. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the order passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside.

¶23

5 ( 2025:HHC:14209 )

¶24

I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.

¶25

The offences punishable under Section 3 of the S.C. & S.T. Act, 1989 are not compoundable. Therefore, it is impermissible to pass an order acquitting the accused based on the compromise effected between the parties. Section 359(9) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“in short BNSS”), clearly provides that no offence shall be compounded except as specifically provided for by that Section. Therefore, it is impermissible to compound an offence which is not specified in Section 359 of BNSS.

¶26

Learned Trial Court relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab (2018) 4 SCC 582. However, the same dealt with the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bindeswari Prasad Singh Vs. Kali Singh (1977) 1 SCC 57, that the inherent powers under Section 561A of Cr.PC were conferred upon the High Court and the High Court alone and unlike Section 151 of C.P.C., the subordinate criminal Courts do not have any inherent powers. Therefore, the

¶27

6 ( 2025:HHC:14209 )

¶28

learned Special Judge could not have exercised the inherent power to quash the proceedings.

¶29

The learned Special Judge also held that there was no case against the accused which if unrebutted would result in the conviction of the accused. It appears that the learned Special Judge was referring to Section 255 of BNSS However, it was not noticed that the Judge is bound to take all evidence that has been produced in support of the prosecution under Section 231 of Cr.P.C before the power under Section 255 of BNSS can be exercised.² In the present case, the prosecution had cited 33 witnesses and had examined only three witnesses. Thus, all the evidence had not been led, and the stage for invoking the power under Section 255 of BNSS had not reached.

¶30

The learned Special Judge also requisitioned the record from the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ghumarwin and discharged the accused. Learned Special Judge was exercising the power of learned Sessions Judge and could not have taken cognizance of the offence in view of the bar contained in Section 193 unless the case was committed to it³ . In

¶31

2 Bablu Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2015) 8 SCC 787

¶32

3 Jaswant and another vs State of Rajasthan (2009) 8 SCR 701

¶33

7 ( 2025:HHC:14209 )

¶34

the present case, the matter was not committed to the learned Sessions Judge and the learned Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction to pass the order of the discharge.

¶35

Therefore, the order passed by the learned Special Judge dated 04.01.2024 cannot be sustained and the same is set aside. The matter is remitted to the learned Special Judge for proceeding further as per law.

¶36

The observation made hereinabove shall remain confined to the disposal of the petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the case.

¶37

( Rakesh Kainthla) 16^th May, 2025 Judge (Shamsh Tabrez)

State of Hp v. Raj Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Hp v. Raj Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohan Singh Vs State

Dinesh Vs State of Hp and Another

Anil Kumar Vs State of Hp and Another

Gagan Singh Vs State of Hp and Another

Nitin Chauhan Vs Pyare Lal

Nitin Chauhan Vs Pyare Lal