Amit Kumar And Others ... vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 110 UK

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND

                          AT NAINITAL

  Criminal Misc. Application (C-482) No. 680 of 2020



Amit Kumar and others                              .....Applicants
                           Versus
State of Uttarakhand and another                ......Respondents

Mr. Akshay Pradhan, Advocate for the applicants.
Mr. Rakesh Kumar Joshi and Ms. Sonika Khulbe, learned Brief Holders for
the State of Uttarakhand.
Mr. Shashank Pandey, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3.


                                         Dated: 11th January, 2021

Hon'ble N.S. Dhanik, J.

This Criminal Miscellaneous Application, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., along with compounding application being CRMA No. 3899 of 2020, is preferred to quash the entire proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 62 of 2020, "State of Uttarakhand vs. Ravi and others", under Sections 323, 324, 504, 506, 307 and 34 IPC pending in the Court of learned District and Sessions Judge, Haridwar, District Haridwar along with impugned charge sheet dated 10.01.2020 qua the applicants.

2. In support of compounding application, affidavits have been filed by Shri Amit Kumar (applicant no. 1), by Shri Mahak Singh (respondent nos. 2/complainant) and by Smt. Ritu (respondent no. 3/injured). It has been submitted that the parties have amicably settled their dispute and the injured

do not want to prosecute the accused applicants. Applicant nos. 1 to 3 and respondent nos. 2 and 3 are present in the court today through Video Conferencing 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

applicants and respondent nos. 2 and 3.

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

4.           Learned       Counsel       for     the     accused
applicants    contended       that    the      injured   received
injuries   which     are     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 entire proceedings of Session Trial No. 62 of 2020, "State of Uttarakhand vs. Ravi and others", under Sections 323, 324, 504, 506, 307 and 34 IPC registered at P.S Kotwali

Ranipur, District Haridwar pending in the Court of learned District and Sessions Judge Haridwar, District Haridwar are hereby quashed, so far it relates to the applicants only. The Present criminal miscellaneous application stands disposed of accordingly. Inform the Court concerned accordingly.

(N.S. Dhanik, J.) 11.01.2021 SB