Petitioners vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 400 UK

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND

                           AT NAINITAL

             Criminal Writ Petition No. 2187 of 2020



Saroj Dhapola @ Saraswati Dhapola & others

                                                     .....Petitioners
                            Versus

State of Uttarakhand and others

                                                 ......Respondents

Mr. Tarun Prakash Singh Takuli, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Mr. V.S. Rathore, learned A.G.A. for the State.
Mr. Piyush Singh Kharayat, learned counsel for respondent no.3 & injured.



                                      Dated: 23rd February, 2020

Hon'ble N.S. Dhanik, J.

The present criminal writ petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking the following reliefs:

(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned FIR No. 0200 of 2020 dated 19.12.2020 under Sections 307, 504 & 34 of IPC, P.S. Kotwali Bageshwar, District Bageshwar lodged by respondent no. 3 against the petitioners.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 2 not to arrest the petitioners in impugned FIR No. 0200 of 2020 dated 19.12.2020, under Sections 307, 504 & 34 of IPC, P.S. Kotwali Bageshwar, District Bageshwar lodged by respondent no. 3 against the petitioners.

(iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to give effect the impugned FIR No. 0200 of 2020 dated 19.12.2020 under Section 307, 504 & 34 of IPC, P.S. Kotwali Bageshwar, District Bageshwar lodged by respondent no. 3 against the petitioners.

2. Now, parties have filed the joint compounding application stating therein that they have entered into compromise and amicably settled their dispute and now the respondent no. 3 & injured does not have any grievance with the petitioner. In support of compounding application, (IA No. 11404/2021), affidavits have been filed by the petitioners; respondent no. 3 & the injured.

3. On 14.01.2021, respondent no. 3/complainant (Neeraj Dhapola) along with injured (Kundan Dhapola) were present before this Court through Video Conferencing whereas all the petitioners were present in person before this Court duly identified by their respective counsels.

4. Compounding application bears the signatures/thumb impressions of the petitioners; respondent no. 3 and the injured. It has been further stated by the parties that now they have amicably settled their dispute. Therefore, learned Counsel for the parties have submitted that the impugned FIR be quashed in terms of the compromise.

5. Learned State Counsel opposed the compounding application on the ground that Section 307 IPC is non-compoundable.

6. Learned Counsel for the accused petitioners contended that all the injuries are simple in nature. Learned Counsel placed reliance on a recent judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in State of

Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan, (2019) 5 SCC 688, wherein it has been observed as under:

"Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be generally treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to proving the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delicate parts of the body, nature of weapons used, etc. Medical report in respect of injuries suffered by the victim can generally be the guiding factor. On the basis of this prima facie analysis, the High Court can examine as to whether there is a strong possibility of conviction or the chances of conviction are remote and bleak. In the former case it can refuse to accept the settlement and quash the criminal proceedings whereas in the latter case it would be permissible for the High Court to accept the plea compounding the offence based on complete settlement between the parties. At this stage, the Court can also be swayed by the fact that the settlement between the parties is going to result in harmony between them which may improve their future relationship."

5. Needless to say, non-compoundable offences cannot be compounded. But considering the nature of injuries, above authority of the Hon'ble Apex Court and also the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Nikhil Merchant v. C.B.I. & Ors, (2008) 9 SCC 677; B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana & Anr. reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675, and in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Another, (2012) 10 SCC 303, where there is a genuine compromise and there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being convicted and continuance of the proceedings, after the compromise having been arrived at between the parties, would be a futile exercise, the compromise

should be accepted and the impugned FIR should be quashed.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the legal proposition propounded by the Hon'ble Apex Court, compounding application is allowed. Compromise arrived at between the parties is accepted. Impugned FIR dated 19.12.2020 arising out of FIR No. 0200 of 2020, under Sections 307, 504 & 34 of IPC, P.S. Kotwali Bageshwar, District Bageshwar is quashed in terms of the compromise.

7.         Writ   petition       stands     disposed     of
accordingly.

8. Let a certified copy of this order be issued to the learned counsel for the parties, within 48 hours on payment of usual charges.

(N.S. Dhanik, J.) 23.02.2020 AK