Uttarakhand High Court
WPCRL/171/2021 on 29 January, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
ON THE 29th DAY OF JANUARY, 2021
BEFORE:
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHARAD KUMAR SHARMA, J.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.171 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
Bablish Babar S/o Mahmood Hasan R/o 46 Civil Lines,
Delhi Road, Roorkee, District Haridwar
........Petitioner
(By Sri Bilal Ahmad, learned Advocate)
AND :
1. State of Uttarakhand through Secretary Home,
Secretariat Compled, Dehradun.
2. Station House Offier P.S. Kotwali Roorkee,
District Haridwar.
3. Zeba Khan W/o Arshad R/o 188/11, Lalkurti,
Roorkee, District Haridwar.
.......Respondents
(Mr. J.S. Virk, learned Deputy Advocate General
assisted by Mr. Rakesh Kumar Joshi, learned Brief
Holder for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent Nos.1
& 2 and Mr. Mohd Umar, learned counsel for
respondent No.3.)
This criminal writ petition coming on for hearing this
day Hon'ble Shri Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
delivered the following Order:
ORDER
The present criminal writ petition has
been preferred by the petitioner for the
following reliefs:-
I. Issue a writ order or direction in the
nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned
F.I.R. (Annexure-1) registered as Case Crime
No.705/2020 Under Section - 307 P.S. Kotwali
Roorkee District Haridwar on the basis of
amicable settlement between the party.
II. Issue a writ order or direction in the
nature of mandamus commanding the
respondents not to arrest the petitioner in Case
Crime No.705/2020 Under Section - 307 P.S.
Kotwali Roorkee District Haridwar till the
pendency of present petition.
III. Issue any other order or direction which
this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in
the circumstances of the case.
2. By virtue of which he has prayed for
quashing of the FIR No.705 of 2020, which was
registered against him under Section 307 of
the IPC at P.S. Kotwali Roorkee, District
Haridwar and the complainant/respondent No.3
herein, subsequent to the institution of the
present criminal writ petition, a Compounding
Application No.2 of 2021, has been filed by the
parties bearing their respective signatures,
along with the signatures of their respective
counsels. The parties are also present in-
person before this Court, duly identified by
their respective counsels.
3. The complainant had made a
categorical statement before this Court that
the nature of incident as it has been narrated
and complained in the FIR in fact it never
chanced, only a minor alteration did took
place, but she was constraint to file a
complaint on account of the pressure which
was exerted by the other relatives. Hence, the
FIR was registered. She has further informed
that in fact, the petitioner before this Court, is
her close relative and hence, she does not
want to prosecute the applicant, in view of the
ground and reasons which had already been
narrated in the compounding application;
wherein, she has also expressed, that the FIR,
was as a consequence of the pressure which
was exerted by the other relatives for the
purposes of registration of the FIR.
4. The compounding application is being
vehemently opposed by the learned Deputy
Advocate General, on the ground that the
offence complaint of against the petitioner, is
not compoundable in view of the provisions
contained under Section 320 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure; as it happens to be an
offence, which is of a very grievous nature and
having a vide repercussion. There cannot any
doubt with regard to the contentions as it has
been expressed by the counsel for the State;
but the gravity and the parameters for its
consideration, always varies in accordance with
the circumstances of each and every case a
uniform formula cannot always be adopted.
The consideration of the impact, of non
compoundability of Section 307 of IPC, in the
present case has to be considered in a different
context, where the complainant's statement
itself is to the effect that the registration of the
FIR, was not voluntarily done but was rather as
the consequence of the pressure which was
exerted on her and she voluntarily had
expressed that she does not intend to further
prosecute the applicant, because otherwise
also, they are relatives which in an event of
consequence of the prosecution will increase
the animosity between the families.
5. The objection of the learned Deputy
Advocate General, could stand ruled out by the
judicial precedents, which had been settled
down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and which I
too had an occasion to deal with in a judgment
rendered in Pan Singh Rana vs. State of
Uttarakhand and another (2018)2 UD 680,
which was in relation to the cognizance and
compoundability of the offences, which are of a
grievous nature having a social repercussions.
It has been a consistent view of the Hon'ble
Apex Court that the limitation imposed by the
provisions contained under Section 320
Cr.P.C., cannot be imposed in its strict terms
on the Constitutional Courts, which are
exercising their inherent power, which are
competent enough to expand the implication of
Section 320 Cr.P.C.
6. Hence, in view of the aforesaid ratio
and for the reasons which have been given
above, coupled with the statement which had
been made by the parties who are present in-
person before this Court, the writ petition
stands allowed and, and as a consequence
thereto, the Case Crime No.550 of 2020,
registered at P.S. Kotwali Roorkee, District
Haridwar, for commission of an offence under
Section 307 of IPC, would hereby stands
quashed in view of the terms and conditions of
composition of offence. Accordingly, the writ
petition stands allowed subject to the terms
and reasoning of the compounding application.
(Sharad Kumar Sharma)
Vacation Judge
Sanjay
