Himachal Pradesh High Court
Anju Thakur vs State Of H.P. & Ors on 7 March, 2017
Author: Dharam Chand Chaudhary
Bench: Dharam Chand Chaudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
Cr.MMO No. 211 of 2016.
.
Decided on: 07.03.2017.
Anju Thakur ......Petitioner.
Versus
State of H.P. & ors. .......Respondent.
of
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? 1. Yes.
For the petitioner:
rt Mr. Anil Thakur, Advocate, vice counsel.
For the respondents: Mr. Neeraj K. Sharma, Dy. Advocate General for
the respondent-State.
Mr. Vikas Chandel, Advocate for respondent No. 2.
Mr. Vinit Thakur, Advocate, vice counsel for
respondent No. 3.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Justice Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J (Oral).
Complaint herein is that learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimla has erroneously dismissed the application filed under Section 320 Cr.P.C. seeking permission to compound the offence punishable under Sections 406, 420, 506 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, vide impugned order dated 21.1.2016, Annexure P-3.
2. Petitioner herein is the accused in Cr. Case No. 198-2 of 13/11. The complainant (respondent No. 2 herein) has filed an application under Section 320 Cr.P.C. for withdrawal of the case FIR No. 29/2010 registered against her under Sections 406, 420, 506 and 120-B IPC. The 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:59:10 :::HCHP 2impugned order reveals that the charge against the accused-petitioner has only been framed under Section 420 read with Sections 120-B and 506 .
IPC. In view of the provisions contained under Section 320 Cr.P.C., an offence punishable under Section 506 IPC can be compounded by the person intimidated i.e. the complainant even without the permission of the Court. Further, an offence punishable under Section 420 IPC can only be of compounded by the person cheated but with the permission of the Court.
Learned trial Court, however, has dismissed the application for the sole rt reason that the offence punishable under Section 120-B IPC is not compoundable either with the permission of the Court or otherwise.
3. It is significant to note that an offence under Section 120-B IPC is not an independent and substantive offence and rather its commission can be inferred only in those cases where the offender was a party to criminal conspiracy and the conspiracy so hatched led to the commission of an offence punishable with death or rigorous imprisonment for a term over two years or upwards. Now, if coming to the punishment for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 120-B IPC, an offender has to be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted the commission of substantive offence consequent upon such conspiracy. The substantive offences in the case in hand for which the accused-petitioner has been charged with are punishable under Sections 506 and 420 IPC.
As noticed supra, the same are compoundable with and without the permission of the Court by the person intimidated and the person cheated, viz. the complainant.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:59:10 :::HCHP 34. There seems to be some settlement arrived at between the parties, as is apparent from the perusal of the contents of the application .
Annexure P-2. It is consequent upon such settlement, an application under Section 320 Cr.P.C. was filed for compounding of the offence, the accused-petitioner allegedly committed. When the complainant intends to compound the offence and there being settlement between him and the of accused petitioner, it cannot be believed by any stretch of imagination that he would be going to depose against her during the course of trial of the rt case. Therefore, in these circumstances, allowing criminal proceedings to continue against the accused-petitioner, otherwise would also amount to abuse of process of law.
5. Learned trial Judge seems to have been influenced on account of the fact that the offence punishable under Section 120-B IPC does not find mention in the table below Section 320 Cr.P.C. However, he has omitted to take note of Section 320(3) Cr.P.C. which provides that when the substantive offence is compoundable under this Section, the abetment of such an offence or intention to commit such offence or when the accused is liable with the aid of Section 34 or 149 IPC, the same may also be compounded in the like manner. Since there is a provision under Section 120-B IPC to punish an offender for the commission of offence in the capacity of an abettor of a substantive offence and as such substantive offence is compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C as in the case in hand, the offence under Section 120-B IPC should have also been allowed to be compounded, as provided under Section 320(3) Cr.P.C.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:59:10 :::HCHP 46. For all these reasons and also that there being amicable settlement arrived at between the parties, there is every possibility of the .
trial ending in acquittal, the pending criminal proceedings against the accused-petitioner deserves to be quashed.
7. Consequently, the FIR and further proceedings in criminal case No. 198-2 of 13/11 pending disposal against the accused-petitioner of before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimla are ordered to be quashed.
The petition is accordingly allowed and stands disposed of.
8. rt An authenticated copy of this judgment be sent to learned trial Court for being taken on record and compliance.
March 07, 2017, ( Dharam Chand Chaudhary ),
Judge.
(karan-)
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:59:10 :::HCHP