Uttarakhand High Court
Unknown vs Singh Gahalaut" on 16 August, 2023
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
Office Notes, reports,
orders or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions and COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No
Registrar's order with
Signatures
C482 No. 1629 of 2023
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
Mr. Tapan Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.
2. Mr. K.S. Rawal, learned A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent no.1.
3. Mr. Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel for the private respondent.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
5. This C-482 application has been filed by the applicant challenging the cognizance order dated 01.01.2017 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar under Sections 417 & 494 of IPC, order dated 19.08.2019 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar, whereby the charge has been framed against the applicant under Section 495 of IPC as well as the entire proceedings of the Criminal Complaint Case No. 289 of 2017 (Old No. 1210 of 2017), "Simran@Soni Vs. Brijpal Singh Gahalaut", under Section 495 of IPC, pending consideration before the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar, mainly on the ground that a compromise took place between the applicant and the private respondent.
6. A criminal complaint was filed by the private respondent-Simran @ Soni against the applicant-Brijpal Singh Gahalaut in the Court of learned Additional CJM, Kashipur, Udham Singh Nagar with the allegation that Brijpal Singh Gahalaut, who was already married, concealing the fact of his earlier marriage, solemnized marriage with the private respondent-Simran @ Soni on 01.11.2012.
7. On the said complaint, the cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate vide 2 order dated 01.07.2017 and the applicant was summoned to face the trial under Section 417/494 of IPC. Later on, when the charge was framed, learned Judicial Magistrate, Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar framed charge against the applicant only under Section 495 of IPC, to which the applicant pleaded not guilty and prayed for trial.
8. Today, in the present C-482 application, a compounding application (IA No. 1 of 2023) is filed supported by the separate affidavits of the applicant and the private respondent, wherein, it has been contended that the parties had arrived at a compromise, especially for the reason since a child named Rajat was born out of the said wedlock and applicant was ready to pay a sum of Rs. 22 lakhs to the private respondent as a permanent alimony for her and her son's maintenance and will also give a plot of 180 squire Yard, which is situated in revenue village Devipura, Maldhan, Tehsil Ramnagar, District Nainital. Both the parties are present before this Court and they have been duly identified by their respective counsels.
9. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the private respondent that the plot has already been transferred in the name of private respondent-Simran @ Soni, while out of total Rs. 22 lakhs, only Rs. 9 lakhs is received by the private respondent, which fact is also admitted by her before this Court.
10. Per contra, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State submitted that the offence under Section 495 of IPC is non-compoundable in view of the provision of Section 320 of Cr.P.C. (the Code) and therefore, this is not proper to compound the offence at the behest of the parties.
11. I have considered the submissions made by the rival parties and have gone through the complaint as well as the provisions of law referred by the learned A.G.A. Though, the offence under Section 495 3 of IPC is non-compoundable under the provision of Cr.P.C. as provided under Section 320 of the Code, but the inherent powers of this Court cannot be circumvented by the provision of Section 320 of the Code. The power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is wider than the provisions given under the Code. The inherent power of this Court can be invoked for the ends of justice and in order to prevent the miscarriage of justice and to secure the ends of justice.
12. Since, the aforesaid criminal litigation arose out of the matrimonial relation between the parties and now they want to come to a term and to live peacefully, this Court thinks it proper to invoke the inherent powers for quashing the proceedings of the Criminal Complaint Case No. 289 of 2017 (Old No. 1210 of 2017), "Simran@Soni Vs. Brijpal Singh Gahalaut", under Section 495 of IPC, in order to secure the ends of justice and to ensure to prevent the miscarriage of justice.
13. In this view of the matter, the compounding application filed by the applicant and the private respondent, supported by the separate affidavits, is hereby allowed. The entire proceedings of Criminal Complaint Case No. 289 of 2017 (Old No. 1210 of 2017), "Simran@Soni Vs. Brijpal Singh Gahalaut", under Section 495 of IPC, pending before the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar is hereby quashed.
14. Accordingly, the C-482 application stands allowed.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.) 16.08.2023 PN/-