Petitioners vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 522 UK

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND

                            AT NAINITAL

             Criminal Writ Petition No. 1202 of 2020


Manjula Arora & another

                                                      .....Petitioners
                            Versus

State of Uttarakhand and others

                                                  ......Respondents

Mr. P.C. Petshali, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Mr. A.K. Sah, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State.
Mr. Lalit Sharma, learned counsel for respondent no. 3.


                                      Dated: 26th February, 2021

Hon'ble N.S. Dhanik, J.

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

(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the FIR dated 31.07.2020, registered as FIR No. 224 of 2020, under Sections 406 IPC, registered at P.S. ITI, District Udham Singh Nagar.

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 does not have any grievance with the petitioner. In support of compounding application (IA No. 5772/2021), affidavits have been filed by the petitioners and the respondent no. 3.

3. Petitioner no. 1 (Manjula Arora), petitioner no. 2 (Amit Arora) as well as the respondent no. 3 (Rajeev Ghai/complainant) are present-in-person

before this Court duly identified by their respective counsels.

4. Compounding application bears the signatures/thumb impressions of the petitioners and the respondent no. 3. 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 has no objection to the compounding application.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in B.S. Joshi, (2003) 4 SCC 675; Nikhil Merchant, (2008) 9 SCC 677; and Manoj Sharma, (2008) 16 SCC.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the legal proposition propounded by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the compounding application is allowed. Compromise arrived at between the parties is accepted. Impugned dated 31.07.2020 arising out of FIR No. 224 of 2020, under Section 406 IPC, registered at P.S. ITI, District Udham Singh Nagar is quashed in terms of the compromise.

(N.S. Dhanik, J.) 26.02.2021 AK