Virat Tyagi vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 4542 UK

     HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

     Criminal Misc. Application No. 1552 of 2021

Virat Tyagi                                       ........... Petitioner


                                      Vs.



State of Uttarakhand and another                     ........ Respondents



Present : Mr. Gaurav Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
          Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, A.G.A. for the State/respondent no.1.
          Mr. Shariq Khurshid, Advocate for the private respondent no.2.


                                JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

In the instant petition, petitioner seeks

quashing of the charge-sheet dated 19.09.2016,

cognizance order dated 15.05.2017, passed by the 2nd

Judicial Magistrate Roorkee, District Haridwar in Criminal

Case No.376 of 2017, as well as the entire proceedings of

Criminal Case No.376 of 2017, State vs. Prashant Rana

and others, under Sections 147, 148, 323, 504, 506 IPC

pending in the court of 2nd Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee,

District Haridwar (for short, "the case") on the basis of

amicable settlement between the parties.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

3. The case is based on an FIR, lodged under

Sections 147, 148, 323, 504, 506 IPC. After investigation,

charge-sheet has been submitted against the petitioner

and others, under Sections 147, 148, 323, 504, 506 IPC.

This is how the proceeding of the case was instituted.

Petitioner and the respondent no.2, who is informant,

have jointly filed a compounding application along with

affidavits.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner and

respondent no.2 would submit that the parties have

amicably settled the dispute; they are residents of nearby

locality; there is exaggerated version recorded in the FIR.

If the settlement is accepted, the parties would stay in

peace and harmony.

5. Petitioner and respondent no.2, are present

before the Court, duly identified by their respective

counsel. They have accepted before the Court that

voluntarily they have settled the dispute.

6. In the instant case, it is stated that parties are

residents of nearby locality. Parties are living in peace and

harmony now. Having considered all the attending factors,

this Court is of the view that it is a case which may be

decided on the basis of amicable settlement between the

parties. Accordingly, the petition deserves to be allowed.

7. The petition is allowed. The charge-sheet dated

19.09.2016, cognizance order dated 15.05.2017, passed

by the 2nd Judicial Magistrate Roorkee, District Haridwar

in Criminal Case No.376 of 2017, as well as the entire

proceedings of Criminal Case No.376 of 2017, State vs.

Prashant Rana and others, under Sections 147, 148, 323,

504, 506 IPC pending in the court of 2nd Judicial

Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar are hereby

quashed.

8. Compounding application stands disposed of

accordingly.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 12.11.2021 Sanjay