Uttarakhand High Court
Boota Singh And Others ..... Applicants vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 18 October, 2022
Author: Sharad Kumar Sharma
Bench: Sharad Kumar Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1838 of 2022
Boota Singh and Others ..... Applicants
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and Others .....Respondents
Mr. Pooran Singh Rawat, Advocate for the Applicants
Mr. Mahendra Singh Rawat, Advocate for respondent no. 3 and 4
Mrs. Mamta Joshi, Brief Holder for the State
JUDGMENT
Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J. (Oral) A FIR was got registered by respondent no. 2 i.e. the Sub-Inspector, as against the named applicants for their alleged involvement, for the commission of offences under Sections 147, 427 and 436 of the IPC.
2. According to set of allegations which had been levelled in the FIR, as against the present applicants, it was contended that owing to certain enmity, which persisted amongst group of persons of the same village. The alleged FIR was said to have been registered owing to the fact that a "Marhaiya" was put on fire by the present applicants, in order to attract Section 436 of IPC, which is not compoundable under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
3. The C-482 Application is supported with a Compounding Application (IA/1/2022), which has been duly signed and verified by the parties, as well as, by their respective counsels and they have contended that they have compounded their offences, owing to the terms of settlement which has been arrived at between the parties. As a consequence thereto, they have submitted that the proceeding of the Criminal Case No. 1891 of 2021 "State Vs. Boota Singh and Others", which is pending consideration before the Court of Additional Chief 2 Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, may be compounded and dropped.
4. The victims of the said offence are present in person i.e. respondent no. 3 & 4 herein. This Court has interacted with respondent no. 3 & 4, who had been recognized by their counsel and apart from the fact, that he has submitted that the parties has resolved their dispute outside the Court, by entering into an amicable settlement, coupled with the fact that the respondent no. 3, has also clarified that the alleged act which was narrated by the Sub Inspector, respondent no. 2 herein, in the FIR, it was not the house which was actually set on fire, but it was rather a "Marhaiya" which was set on fire.
5. The learned Government Advocate opposes the Compounding Application on the ground that the offence under Section 436 of the IPC is not compoundable. His arguments could have been sustained subject to the condition that if the circumstances narrated in the FIR is taken into consideration, where it refers the word "Marhaiya", in its literal Hindi sense, it means 'a small shed to keep articles'. The relevant definition is extracted hereunder:
"Small shed, hut".
6. This Court is of the view, that for the purposes of attracting Section 436 of the IPC, when it uses the word mischief by fire or explosive substance with any intent to destroy "house". House, as per the Section 436 of the IPC, itself would mean, a human dwelling or as a place for the custody of human property.
37. Looking to the set of allegations levelled in the FIR, none of the ingredients of Section 436 of IPC to bring "Marhaiya" within the definition of "House", which is to be used as for dwelling purposes, could be said to be made out as per the allegations levelled in the FIR. Even otherwise also, the definition of House, as given in the Concise Oxford English Dictionary, it too defines "House" as a place of residence by a human being. In that eventuality, the compoundability of Section 436 of the IPC, which is being opposed by the Government Advocate, would not be apparently made out to be sustained to create an obstruction for considering the Compounding Application under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
8. In view of the aforesaid reasoning, and even after going through the contents of the FIR, the offences could be compounded particularly, when the parties to the proceeding do not intend to prosecute each other for the set of allegations, which had been allegedly levelled in the FIR, as narrated by respondent no. 2, because, the victims, who themselves were not the complainants in the FIR.
9. Owing to the aforesaid facts and after having interacted with the victims of the said incident, on which the cognizance have been taken by registration of the Criminal Case No. 1669 of 2021 "State Vs. Boota Singh & Others", this Court is of the view that even the implications of Compounding Application under Section 320 of CrPC, if it is to be read in the context of exercise of powers by this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which is wide enough to exercise my inherent powers in relation to a non-compoundable offences.
410. This is what has been considered by this Court. If the judgment reported in 2018 (2) U.D., 680, "Pan Singh Rana Vs. State of Uttarakhand and another", where the aspect of compoundability of offence by the exercise of powers by the Constitutional Courts was considered in the light of judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, as rendered in the matters of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another : (2012) 10 SCC, 303(para 12); Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another: (2008) 9 SCC, 677(para 20) and Narendra Singh (Supra).
11. In that view of the matter, instead of forcing upon the litigation, upon the parties to the proceedings, who do not want to prosecute, and particularly, the victims who had recorded their statements before this Court, this Court is of the view that the C- 482 Application deserves to be allowed by exercising my inherent powers, under Section 482 of CrPC, because otherwise it would be rather forcing upon the litigation upon the parties to the proceedings, would be an act of futility, because it has a wider possibility, that if the trial is forcefully conducted to the aforesaid Criminal Case, if the parties turn to be hostile, it would be of no fruitful purpose which could be served for any of the parties to the proceedings.
12. In view of the aforesaid, the Compounding Application is allowed, and as the consequence thereto the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1891 of 2021 "State Vs. Boota Singh", pending consideration before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, Uttarakhand, would hereby stand quashed.
513. But, this composition of offence under Sections 147, 427, 436 of the IPC by this Court in the present 482 application would be with a rider that the present applicants would in future maintain peace and tranquillity, in the place of their abode, particularly in the context of their any criminal activates against the respondent no. 3 & 4 herein.
14. Subject to the aforesaid, the present C-482 Application stands disposed of.
(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.) 18.10.2022 PN/-