Uttarakhand High Court
Unknown vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 30 July, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
Criminal Writ Petition No. 1107 of 2020
Niyamul Haq @ Niyamul
.....Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others
......Respondents
Mr. S.K. Shandilya, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mrs. Mamta Joshi, learned Brief Holder for the State.
Mr. Sachin Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent nos.3 & 4.
Dated: 30th July, 2021
Hon'ble N.S. Dhanik, J.
The present criminal writ petition has been
filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:
(i) Issue a writ, order in the nature of certiorari to
quash the FIR dated 31.05.2021 of FIR No. 0614
of 2021, under Sections 147, 148, 307 & 504 IPC,
Police Station Manglore, District Haridwar
(contained as annexure no. 1) as much relates to
the petitioner.
(ii) A writ, order or direction in the nature of
mandamus commanding the respondent no. 1 & 2
not to harass and arrest the petitioner in view of
the impugned FIR till the collection of credible
evidence against the petitioner or till the filing of
the report submitted under Section 173 of Cr.P.C.
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.a 3 & 4 do
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 nos. 3 & 4.
3. Petitioner (Niyamul Haq @ Niyamul);
respondent no. 3/ complainant (Mustkeem) and
respondent no. 4/injured (Meharbaan) 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 nos. 3 & 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 although opposed
the compounding application on the ground that
Section 307 IPC is non-compoundable but admit the
fact that the nature of injury is simple in nature and
caused by hard and blunt object.
6. Learned Counsel for the accused petitioner
contended that all the injuries are simple in nature.
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."
7. 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 impugned FIR should be
quashed.
8. 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 dated 31.05.2021arising
out of FIR No. 0614 of 2021, under Sections 147,
148, 307 & 504 IPC, Police Station Manglore, District
Haridwar is quashed in terms of the compromise,
qua the petitioner only.
9. Writ petition stands disposed of
accordingly.
(N.S. Dhanik, J.)
30.07.2021
AK
