Uttarakhand High Court
Sandeep & Others ... vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 23 June, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
Criminal Writ Petition No. 941 of 2021
Sandeep & others .....Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others ......Respondents
Mr. Bilal Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Mrs. Mamta Joshi, learned Brief Holder for the State.
Mr. Ashok Kumar Beniwal, learned counsel for respondent no. 3.
Dated: 23rd June, 2021
Hon'ble N.S. Dhanik, J. (Oral)
The present criminal writ petition has been
filed by the petitioners seeking the following reliefs:
(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature
of certiorari quashing the impugned FIR
registered as Case Crime No. 488 of 2021, under
Sections 323, 307, 452 & 504 IPC, PS Kotwali
Lakshar, 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. 488 of
2021, under Sections 323, 307, 452 & 504 IPC,
PS Kotwali Lakshar, District Haridwar.
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. 3 do not
have any grievance with the petitioners. In support of
compounding application, (IA No. 1/2021), affidavits
have been filed by the petitioners as well as
respondent no. 3.
3. On 18.06.2021, parties were present
before were present before this Court through Video
Conferencing, duly identified by their respective
counsels. They admitted the settlement.
4. Compounding application bears the
signatures/thumb impressions of the petitioners and
respondent no. 3. 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 but admit the fact that
the instant case is a no injury case.
6. Learned Counsel for the petitioners 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
fact that the present matter 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.
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 registered as Case Crime
No. 488 of 2021, under Sections 323, 307, 452 & 504
IPC, PS Kotwali Lakshar, District Haridwar is
quashed in terms of the compromise qua the
petitioners.
9. Present criminal writ petition stands
disposed of accordingly.
(N.S. Dhanik, J.)
23.06.2021
AK
