Uttarakhand High Court
Rajat Kumar & Others ... vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 7 May, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
Criminal Writ Petition No. 583 of 2021
Rajat Kumar & others .....Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others ......Respondents
Mr. Prem Kaushal, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Mr. J.S. Virk, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State.
Mr. Ravi Bisht, learned counsel for respondent no. 3.
Dated: 07th May, 2021
Hon'ble N.S. Dhanik, J. (Oral)
The present criminal writ petition has been
filed by the petitioners seeking the following relief:
(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature
of certiorari quashing the impugned FIR dated
06.12.2020 lodged by respondent no. 3 registered
as FIR/Case Crime No. 50 of 2020, under
Sections 323, 504 & 506 IPC (During investigation
including Section 326 IPC), P.S. Tehri, District
Tehri Garhwal.
(ii) Issue an appropriate order or direction for
forthwith release of petitioner nos. 2 & 3 who are
languishing in jail pursuant to FIR/Case Crime
No. 50 of 2020, under Sections 323, 504 & 506
IPC (During investigation including Section 326
IPC), P.S. Tehri, District Tehri Garhwal.
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 nos. 3 & 4 do
not have any grievance with the petitioners. In
support of compounding application, (IA No. 1/2021),
affidavits have been filed by the petitioners and
respondent nos. 3 & 4.
3. It is submitted that petitioner nos. 3 & 4
are in jail and as such the petitioner nos. 3 & 4 from
jail have authorized in writing to Mr. Ashok Kumar
S/o Late Santosh Kumar for doing pairvi on their
behalf and the said authorization letter is duly
attested by concerned Jailor.
4. On 05.04.2021, petitioner nos. 1 & 2 and
respondent no. 3 (complainant) and respondent no. 4
(injured) were present before this Court and they
admitted that the dispute has been settled amicably
between them.
5. Compounding application bears the
signatures/thumb impressions of the petitioners and
respondent nos. 3 and 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.
6. Learned State Counsel opposed the
compounding application on the ground that Section
326 IPC is non-compoundable. He also submits that
although the injuries are grievous in nature but not
dangerous to life.
7. Learned Counsel for the accused
petitioners contended that all the injuries are
grievous in nature and not dangerous to life. 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."
8. 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.
9. 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 06.12.2020 arising
out of FIR/Case Crime No. 50 of 2020, under
Sections 323, 504 & 506 IPC (During investigation
including Section 326 IPC), P.S. Tehri, District Tehri
Garhwal is quashed in terms of the compromise.
10. Writ petition stands disposed of
accordingly.
(N.S. Dhanik, J.)
07.05.2021
AK
