Uttarakhand High Court
WPCRL/1663/2020 on 25 January, 2021
WPCRL No. 1663 of 2020
Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
Mr. Pranav Singh, learned counsel
for the petitioners.
Mr. Pankaj Joshi, learned Brief
Holder for the State of Uttarakhand.
Mr. Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel
for the respondent no.4.
The respondent no.4, the
complainant had registered an FIR
No.189 of 2020, on 31.03.2020, at Police
Station Bhagwanpur, District Haridwar
against the petitioners, for the offences
under Sections 379, 429 IPC, as well as
under Sections 5 and 11 of the
Uttarakhand Protection of Cow Progeny
Act, 2007.
The petitioners who is shown to be
the accused persons is named in the FIR
which was registered on 31.03.2020, as
an FIR No.189 of 2020, had filed the
present writ petition praying for quashing
of an FIR.
During the pendency of the writ
petition, the complainant, as well as the
accused petitioner has filed an application
under Section 320 of the Code of the
Criminal Procedure, 1973 for composition
of the offence, on the set of allegations
and the grounds which has been
mentioned particularly in para 5 of the
compounding application, to the effect
that the allegation of the two bulls having
been stolen and later slaughtered by the
petitioner was wrong for the reason being
that it is pleaded that later on the bulls
were recovered by the complainant and
they were alive and hence he has sought
for composition of the offence.
The application is being strongly
opposed by the Government Advocate,
on the ground that the nature of offence
which has been mentioned therein,
particularly that as contained under
Section 429, is not compoundable along
with the Section 3/11 of the Uttarakhand
Protection of Cow Progeny Act, 2007.
The non-composition of an offence
and particularly, when an issue comes for
consideration before the Court exercising
its powers under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, is much vide
enough, and the Court is primarily
concerned with that if the complainant
does not want to prosecute the accused
persons against whom the FIR has been
registered, and has later on resiled to
prosecute the accused person any
further, whether still the conduct of trial,
would be leading to a futility, the offences
even though if not compoundable, has to
be taken into consideration by the Court,
in the light of the judgment which was
rendered. This aspect about non
compoundability of an offence was
considered by me in a judgment reported
in 2018 (2) UD 680 Pan Singh Rana
vs. State of Uttarakhand and
another.
In that view of the matter, this
Court is inclined to compound the offence
in the light of set of allegations
mentioned in the application under
Section 320 Cr.P.C.
Accordingly, the offence as
complained is compounded, the FIR
No.189 of 2020 dated 31.03.2020, for
the offence under Sections 379 and 429
of the IPC, to be read with Section 3/11
of the Uttarakhand Protection of Cow
Progeny Act, 2007, would stand quashed.
The learned counsel for the
petitioners had submit that during the
pendency of the writ petition, in the
absence of there being an interim order
being granted to the petitioner no.1, he
has been arrested, it goes without saying
that as a result of quashing of the FIR, on
the basis of the composition of the
offences, the Police Authorities, would act
accordingly so far it relates to the
petitioner no.1, for ensuring his release
for the aforesaid offence only.
(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.)
Vacation Judge
25.01.2021
Pant/
