Shahrukh vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 407 UK

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND

                           AT NAINITAL

  Criminal Misc. Application (C-482) No. 841 of 2020



Shahrukh                                             .....Applicant
                            Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others                    ......Respondents

Mr. Kurban Ali, learned counsel for the applicant.
Mrs. Meena Bisht, learned Brief Holder for the State.
Ms. Lubhna Jahan, learned counsel for the private respondents.


                                           Dated: 23rd February, 2021

Hon'ble N.S. Dhanik, J.

This Criminal Miscellaneous Application, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., along with compounding application being CRMA No. 4489 of 2020, is preferred to quash the Charge Sheet dated 02.08.2020 under Section 324, 352, 504 and 307 IPC (FIR No. 0367 of 2020) registered at PS Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar and to quash the entire further proceedings pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar.

2. Applicant is in jail. In support of compounding application, affidavits have been filed by Shri Sarfaraz (who is brother in law of the applicant & is doing parvi on his behalf), by Smt. Zarin (respondent no. 3/complainant) and by Shri Allauddin (respondent no. 4/injured). It has been

submitted that the parties have amicably settled their dispute and the injured do not want to prosecute the accused applicant. Applicant and respondent nos.3 and 4 are present in the court today and they are duly identified by their respective counsel. They also admitted the facts mentioned in the compounding application. Compounding application bears the signatures/thumb impressions of the accused applicant and respondent nos. 3 and 4.

3. Learned State Counsel opposed the compounding application and contended that offence under Section 307 of IPC, for which the accused applicant is facing trial, is non-compoundable.

4. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has no criminal history and the dispute is between the father and son only. Learned Counsel for the accused applicant also contended that the injured received injury which is simple in nature and not dangerous for life. 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 proceedings 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.

7. Consequently, the Charge Sheet dated 02.08.2020 under Section 324, 352, 504 and 307 IPC (FIR No. 0367 of 2020) registered at PS Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar and the entire further proceedings pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar are hereby quashed, so far it relates to the applicant only. The Present criminal miscellaneous application stands disposed of accordingly. Inform the Court concerned accordingly.

8. Let a certified copy of this order be supplied to learned counsel for the parties, today itself, on payment of usual charges.

(N.S. Dhanik, J.) 23.02.2021 SB