WPCRL/838/2021
2021 Latest Caselaw 2207 UK

                Office Notes,
             reports, orders or
SL.           proceedings or
      Date                                   COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No             directions and
             Registrar's order
              with Signatures



                                  WPCRL No. 838 of 2021
                                  Hon'ble N.S. Dhanik, J .
                                        Ms. Neetu Singh, learned counsel
                                  for the petitioner.
                                        Ms. Mamta Joshi, learned Brief
                                  Holder for the State.
                                        Ms. Gyan Mati, learned counsel for
                                  the fourth respondent.

Respondent no. 4 has lodged the FIR/Case Crime No. 0340 of 2021 with PS Kotwali Bhagwanpur, District Haridwar for the offence under Sections 307, 452 and 506 IPC against the petitioner and other co-accused.

Along with the petition, a joint compounding application has been filed.

In support of the compounding application, affidavits have been filed by the Deponent (Jitender Kumar) who is a relative of the petitioner (in jail) and is doing pairvi on behalf of petitioner and by the fourth respondent (Sachin Kumar).

The petitioner is in jail. The fourth respondent, is present before this Court today through Video Conferencing, duly identified by his Counsel and admitted that he has entered into compromise and do not want to prosecute the petitioner in the instant case.

Learned State Counsel opposed the compounding application on the ground that Section 307 IPC is non- compoundable.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner also contended that the present case is a no injury case. 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."

Needless to say, non-compoundable offences cannot be compounded. But considering the fact that the present case is a no injury case, 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.

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. Impugned FIR/Case Crime No. 0340 of 2021 with PS Kotwali Bhagwanpur, District Haridwar for the offence under Sections 307, 452 and 506 IPC is hereby quashed in terms of the compromise, qua the present petitioner only.

Writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.

(N.S. Dhanik, J.) 02.07.2021 SB