Saddam vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 2389 UK

  IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

         Criminal Writ Petition No. 1157 of 2021


Saddam                                              .....Petitioner
                            Versus

State of Uttarakhand and others                  ......Respondents

Mr. Vikas Anand, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Pramod Tiwari, learned Brief Holder for the State.
Mr. Devendra Mehra, learned counsel for respondent no. 4.


                                             Dated: 13th July, 2021

Hon'ble N.S. Dhanik, J. (Oral)

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

(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned FIR dated 29.03.2019 bearing Case Crime No. 36 of 2019 on the basis of compromise for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC, PS Pulbhatta, District Udham Singh Nagar qua the petitioner.

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. 4 does not have any grievance with the petitioner. In support of compounding application (IA No. 1/2021), affidavits have been filed by the petitioner and respondent no.

4.

3. Petitioner (Saddam) and respondent no. 4/complainant (Vicky Rawat) are present in the Court today through Video Conferencing, duly identified by their respective counsel. They admitted the settlement.

4. Compounding application bears the signatures/thumb impressions of the petitioner and

respondent no. 4. 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 orally opposed the compounding application.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Another, (2012) 10 SCC 303 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 FIR dated 29.03.2019 bearing Case Crime No. 36 of 2019 on the basis of compromise for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC, PS Pulbhatta, District Udham Singh Nagar qua the petitioner is quashed in terms of the compromise qua the petitioner only.

8. Criminal writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.

(N.S. Dhanik, J.) 13.07.2021 AK