St at e v. Sum it Ray, for t he offence punishable under Sect ion
Case Details
Mr. Vipul Painuli, learned A.G.A. for t he St at e of Ut t arakhand.
3. Ms. Reem a Rana, learned counsel t he Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
4. The present applicat ion under Sect ion 528 of t he Bharat iya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhit a, 2023 has been filed on behalf of t he Applicant - Sum it Ray, seeking t he quashing of t he sum m oning order dat ed 07.09.2024 and t he ent ire proceedings of Crim inal Case No. 597 of 2024, St at e vs. Sum it Ray, for t he offence punishable under Sect ion 363 of t he I ndian Penal Code, 1860, pending before t he Court of t he learned Civil Judge/ Judicial Magist rat e, Sit arganj , Dist rict Udham Singh Nagar.
5. Along w it h t he present applicat ion under Sect ion 528, a j oint Com pounding Applicat ion ( I .A. No. 1 of 2025) has been filed, duly signed by t he part ies and support ed by t heir respect ive affidavit s, wherein it is st at ed t hat t he part ies have ent ered int o a com prom ise and request t hat , in view t hereof, t he m at t er be t reat ed as com pounded.
6. As per t he order sheet dat ed 22.05.2025, t he Coordinat e Bench direct ed t he part ies t o appear before t he Secret ary, Dist rict Legal Services Aut horit y, Udham Singh Nagar, on 05.06.2025. The Secret ary was direct ed t o verify t he ident it ies of t he part ies t hrough t heir Aadhaar Cards and aut hent icat e t he cont ent s of t he com pounding applicat ion by recording t heir st at em ent s. The Secret ary was furt her direct ed t o subm it a report before t he next dat e of list ing.
7. Today, Applicant No. 1- Sum it Ray, is present in person before t his Court and is duly ident ified by Mr. Abhishek Joshi, Advocat e. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3- Mrinal Basu and Laxm i Basu are also present in person and are duly ident ified by Ms. Reem a Rana, Advocat e.
8. This Court also int eract ed wit h t he fat her of t he vict im . During t he course of int eract ion, he st at ed t hat t he Applicant and t he vict im have solem nized t heir m arriage. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have expressed t hat t hey do not w ish t o pursue t he m at t er furt her and have no obj ect ion t o t he com pounding applicat ion being allowed.
9. The learned St at e Counsel has opposed t he com pounding applicat ion, cont ending t hat t he offence under Sect ion 363 I PC is non- com poundable. However, it is not disput ed t hat t he vict im , in her st at em ent , has clearly st at ed t hat " t he applicant has caused no harm t o her" , t hereby indicat ing t hat no force or wrongful act was com m it t ed against her. I t is also undisput ed t hat t he applicant and t he vict im are now m arried.
10. The Court has heard t he learned counsel for t he part ies and carefully perused t he m at erial available on record.
11. I n light of t he legal principles laid down by t he Hon’ble Suprem e Court in Gi a n Si n g h v . St a t e o f Pu n j a b , ( 2 0 1 2 ) 1 0 SCC 3 0 3 , a n d D i m p e y Gu j r a l v . Un i o n Te r r i t o r y o f Ch a n d i g a r h , Tr a n sf e r Pe t i t i o n ( Cr i m i n a l ) N o . 1 1 5 o f 2 0 1 2 , d e ci d e d o n 0 6 .1 2 .2 0 1 2 , is well set t led t hat even in cases involving non- com poundable offences, t he High Court , in exercise of it s inherent j urisdict ion, m ay quash t he crim inal proceedings if it is sat isfied t hat t he part ies have am icably set t led t he m at t er and t hat cont inuance of such proceedings would be an abuse of t he process of law or would serve no useful purpose.
12. Considering t he overall fact s and circum st ances of t he case, t he volunt ary set t lem ent bet w een t he part ies, t he m arriage bet ween t he Applicant and t he vict im , and t he vict im ’s cat egorical st at em ent t hat no harm was caused t o her by t he Applicant , t his Court is of t he opinion t hat no fr uit ful purpose would be served by cont inuing wit h t he proceedings. The ends of j ust ice would be m et if t he proceedings are quashed.
13. Accordingly, t he Com pounding Applicat ion allowed. The ent ire proceedings of Crim inal Case No. 597 of 2024, St at e vs. Sum it Ray, for t he offence punishable under Sect ion 363 of t he I ndian Penal Code, 1860, pending before t he Court of t he learned Civil Judge/ Judicial Magist rat e, Sit arganj , Dist rict Udham Singh Nagar, are hereby quashed.
14. Consequent ly, t he Crim inal Miscellaneous Applicat ion filed under Sect ion 528 of t he Bharat iya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhit a, 2023, st ands disposed of. ( A sh i sh N a i t h a n i , J.) 0 4 .0 7 .2 0 2 5 Shiksha SHIKSHA BINJOLA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3410ef86ae41ec9fbabcd5dba6b3a2c24b5aa08b09c12f21822fbd40bf639b 1c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=FD80A2D028949381C52796A542D7FF0A9BED00E67B5283D205F18F E29BDF5DD9, cn=SHIKSHA BINJOLA