Uttarakhand High Court
(Under Section 482 Cr.P.C.) vs State Of Uttarakhand & Another on 6 December, 2018
Author: Manoj K. Tiwari
Bench: Manoj K. Tiwari
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Application No. 1624 of 2018
(Under Section 482 Cr.P.C.)
Khalid ... Applicant
Vs
State of Uttarakhand & another ... Respondents
Mr. Abhishek Verma, Advocate for the applicant.
Mr. Dinesh Chauhan, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand.
Mr. Mohd. Umar, Advocate for the complainant.
Hon'ble Manoj K. Tiwari, J. (Oral)
1. In this case, respondent No. 2 - Ashutosh Kumar lodged an FIR in Police Station Sahaspur, District Dehradun on 03.09.2017 against the applicant, which was registered as Case Crime No. 257 of 2017, under Sections 366 and 376 of I.P.C. It was alleged in the First Information Report that the victim (sister of the complainant) is missing since 31.08.2017. The police, upon completion of investigation, submitted charge-sheet on 27.02.2018 under the aforesaid Sections against the applicant. Learned Magistrate took cognizance against the applicant under the aforesaid sections vide order dated 12.04.2018. Now the case is pending before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun, which was registered as Sessions Trial No. 9 of 2018. Hence, present criminal miscellaneous application invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
2. A compounding application No. 10968 of 2018 has been filed along with this criminal miscellaneous application duly supported by affidavits of the victim and her husband.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that victim and her husband do not want to proceed further in 2 the matter, as parties have buried their differences and entered into a compromise and settled the dispute amicably outside the court, therefore, no useful purpose would be served if the criminal case is continued. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that he wants to compound the matter before this Court against the applicant.
5. Learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the compounding application and submits that the offence under Section 376 of I.P.C. is not compoundable. He further submits that since the offence under Section 376 of I.P.C. is a heinous crime against the society, therefore, there is no reason for allowing the compounding application.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant has not placed any document in support his submission. It is admitted position that sexual offence is the most heinous crime against women by a man. Since the sexual offence is a heinous crime against a society, therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the present matter by invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
7. Accordingly, the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed. Consequently, compounding application also stands rejected.
(Manoj K. Tiwari, J.) 06.12.2018 Aswal