Balvinder Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 3776 UK

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

     Criminal Misc. Application(C-482) No. 1193 of 2021


Balvinder Singh                                .................Petitioner

                                vs.

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



Mr. Shubham Pande, learned counsel, appearing for Mr. Dushyant
Mainali, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. S.S.Adhikari, Deputy A.G., assisted by Mr. Balvinder Singh, Brief
Holder for the State.
Mr. Girish Chandra Lakhchaura, learned counsel for the respondent
no.2.




Hon'ble Narayan Singh Dhanik, J.

By way of present application, moved under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. the applicant seeks to quash the charge sheet, summoning order dated 09.10.2017 and the entire proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 258 of 2017 for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324, 308, 504, 506 and 34 IPC registered at PS Kelakhera District Udham Singh Nagar, pending in the Court of learned Court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar.

2. In support of compounding application ( IA No. 01 of 2021), affidavits have been filed by Balvinder Singh (applicant), by Shri Bhajan Singh (respondent no. 2/complainant, by Shri Lakhwinder Singh (injured) and by Shri Surendra Singh (injured). It has been submitted that the parties have amicably settled their disputes and the injured persons do not want to prosecute the accused applicant. Applicant, injured persons and respondent no.

2/complainant, were present in the court on 07.09.2021 and they were duly identified by their respective counsels. They had also admitted the facts mentioned in the compounding application.

3. Learned State Counsel opposed the compounding application and contended that offence under Section 308, 147 and 148 of IPC, for which the accused applicants are facing trial, are non-compoundable offences and also submitted that the one of the injuries are grievous in nature.

4. Learned Counsel for the accused applicant contended that the injured received injuries which are not dangerous for 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 3 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."

5. 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 proceedings should be quashed.

6. 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.

7. Consequently, charge sheet, summoning order dated 09.10.2017 as well as the entire proceedings of the Sessions Trial No. 258 of 2017 for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324, 308, 504, 506 and 34 IPC, pending in the Court of learned Court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, are

hereby quashed, so far it relates to the present applicant only.

8. The Present criminal miscellaneous application stands disposed of accordingly. Inform the Court concerned accordingly.

(Narayan Singh Dhanik, J.) 21.09.2021 Kaushal