IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Compounding Application No. 551/2009 In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION No. 365/2009 (Under Section 482 of the CrPC) Lalit Mohan Pandey …….Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand & Others ……Respondents Mr. Manish Arora, Advocate, for the applicant/petitioner. Mr. M.A. Khan, Brief Holder, for the State. Mr. B.S. Parihar, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Mohd. Azim, Advocate, for the private respondent no. 2. None for the private respondent no. 3. Lalit Mohan Pandey, applicant/petitioner and Shiv Ram, respondent no. 2 are present in person. 21st November, 2011 Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. By way of this Criminal Miscellaneous Application, filed on 21.5.2009, the prayer has been made to quash the chargesheet as well as the entire proceedings of Special Sessions Trial No. 11/2008, State v. Lalit Mohan Pandey, pending in the Court of Special Sessions Judge, Chapawat against the accused persons, namely, Lalit Mohan Pandey, Amar Singh Adhikari, Mohan Chand @ Nikku Joshi and Amar Singh Kutiyal for the offences punishable under Section 323, 504, 506, 364 IPC read with Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act bearing Crime No. 159/2003. 2. The instant compounding application no. 551/2009 dated 21.5.2009 was filed along with the petition itself stating that a compromise has been arrived at between the applicant petitioner Lalit Mohan Pandey (one of the accused persons) and the respondent no. 2 Shiv Ram (one of the witnesses as well as the main victim of the incident). 2 3. FIR of the incident was lodged on 5.10.2003 at 6.20 pm by Bhagwan Singh Fartiyal (respondent no. 3), who has been named first in the list of witnesses. The statement of PW2 Rajendra Singh got recorded on 18.3.2009. So, the Court can presume that the prosecution might have examined Bhagwan Singh Fartiyal as PW1 before recording the statement of Rajendra Singh as PW2. Thereafter this Court, vide order dated 22.5.2009, stayed the further proceedings of the impugned case. 4. FIR reveals that on 5.10.2003, at about 5.30 in the evening, when Shiv Ram, Chham Singh, Rajendra Singh and Bhagwan Singh Fartiyal were going in Jeep No. UA03-1238, their vehicle was got stopped at a barrier located at the place called Khalgarha Forest by the accused persons Lalit Mohan Pandey, Amar Singh Kotiyal, Raju Rawat(trial against whom has been abated) and Nikku Joshi. Lalit Mohan Pandey caught hold of Shiv Ram and dragged him out of the Jeep. They began to assault him and hurled abuses. One of the accused persons put the pistol on the head of Bhagwan Singh Fartiyal and thereafter the said complainant and Shiv Ram were assaulted by the accused persons. When Chham Singh tried to stop him, Lalit Mohan Pandey put the pistol on his temple and also threatened to kill him. Lalit Mohan Pandey abducted Shiv Ram in the manner stated above. With these averments, the FIR was lodged immediately after the incident and the police after investigation filed the chargesheet against all the aforenamed accused persons for the offences as stated above. 5. The learned Counsel on behalf of the applicant petitioner has argued that Shiv Ram, the main victim, has entered into compromise with Lalit Mohan Pandey, and as such, now, the trial cannot proceed against Lalit Mohan Pandey. He pleaded that in view of the precedent rendered in case of Nikhil Merchant v. C.B.I., reported in (2008) 9 SCC 3 677, the compounding application may be allowed as any further proceeding before the trial court will only be a futile exercise, and this Court should quash the entire proceedings, as prayed in the petition, in terms of the said compromise. The learned Counsel of the petitioner has also drawn the attention of this Court towards an application moved by Shiv Ram on 10.10.2003 to the Station Office Officer, Police Station Nanakmatta, District Udham Singh Nagar, wherein he has stated that due to some mental disturbances, he had reached Haridwar, where he kept on wandering stray at the bank of river Ganges. There he heard the news of his abduction. He became more anxious and started his return for his house situated at Lohaghat (District Champawat). While on his way to his house, the police personnel intercepted the bus for a checking and he narrated the entire story to the police at the time of checking as he was very frightened. He also expressed his desire to give his statement in writing to the police. The contents of the application, moved by Shiv Ram, were noted in the General Diary. 6. Another GD entry no. 47 dated 10.10.2003 of Police Station Lohaghat, District Champwat reveals that when Shiv Ram reached Lohaghat, he was called by the SHO of the said police station for recording his statement. He was found to be in the state of anxiety. He was quite abnormal, terrified and unable to make any statement to the police. So, he was sent back to his home along with his son Pushkar Ram and nephews Keshav Ram and Rami Ram with direction to present Shiv Ram in the police station for recording his statement as and when he regains fitness of his mind. 7. All these manifest that though Shiv Ram, who belongs to Scheduled Caste, is the main victim and one of the eyewitnesses of the incident, has stated that he was not abducted, but there was something unusual and abnormal 4 with him between 5.10.2003 to 10.10.2003, and this short compounding application, simply stating that now he does not want to proceed with the trial, is not sufficient to allow the same even in the spirit of the precedent rendered in the case of Nikhil Merchant, relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Fortiori, two witnesses PW1 Bhagwan Singh Fartiyal and PW2 Rajendra Singh have already been examined during the trial after levelling charges against the accused persons and those witnesses are also the victims. So, the entire fate of the trial cannot be allowed to rest upon the statement of Shiv Ram only, much less it is doubtful that this compromise has been filed independently and without any coercion on Shiv Ram. 8. Moreover, it adverts from paragraph 2 of the affidavit, filed along with the memo of petition, that this is the third Criminal Miscellaneous Application moved by the applicant petitioner under Section 482 CrPC seeking the same relief. But it has nowhere been mentioned that as to what happened in the earlier two petitions. Neither any particulars of the earlier two petitions have been given nor any certified copy of the orders passed therein by this Court have been annexed with the instant petition. Further, to much surprise of this Court, none of the Advocates, appearing either for the petitioner, State or the private respondent no. 2, have brought this fact to the notice of this Court and not a whisper about the same was uttered by them during the course of hearing. It is highly deplorable, and this Court records its displeasure over the same. 9. Furthermore, it would also be pertinent to note here that on 13.9.2011, the parties, who allegedly arrived at the said compromise, were directed by this Court to remain present in person before the Court on 30.9.2011, but they did not turn up. They were afforded another opportunity and were 5 directed to appear on the next date of listing i.e. on 18.11.2011, but in utter defiance of the orders of this Court, they did not turn up again on the said date. It is only when this Court ordered on 18.11.2011 that if they will not appear on the next date, the compounding application would be dismissed, that now they have turned up here. 10. For the reasons recorded above, the compromise arrived at between the petitioner Lalit Mohan Pandey and Shiv Ram is rejected. The compounding application and the petition as well, being meritless, are hereby dismissed. Stay order dated 22.5.2009, passed by this Court, stands vacated. 11. Registry is directed to inform the court concerned accordingly to proceed with the trial of the case. (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) 21.11.2011 Prabodh