Shakuntala Devi And Another ... vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 2011 UK

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL


        Compounding Application (IA No. 3 of 2022)

                                In

          Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 695 of 2022


Shakuntala Devi and another ................                       Petitioners

                               versus

State of Uttarakhand & others................                 Respondents



Mr. A.M.Saklani, learned counsel for the writ applicants.
Mr. Dinesh Tyagi and Mr. P. S. Uniyal, Brief Holders for the
State/respondent nos. 1 to 3.
Mr. Neeraj Upreti and Mr. Mohd. Matoob, learned counsel for the
respondent no. 4.

                            -----------

                   Judgement dated: 06.07.2022

Hon'ble Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, J.

Upon hearing the learned counsels, the Court made the following Order.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This writ application has been filed for quashing of the FIR dated 08.04.2022, for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3 (1) (x) of the Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. A compounding application has also been filed for disposing of the case on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.

3. As per the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 and State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan (2019) 5 SCC 688, the offence under Section 376 IPC is not an offence against an individual but it is an offence committed against the society. In view of the dictum of the aforesaid rulings it cannot be disposed of on the basis of compromise. Hence, this Court is not inclined to allow the application on the basis of compromise or dispose of the writ application on the basis of compromise. The compounding application is accordingly, rejected.

4. On merit also, the petitioner has no case for quashing of the FIR as it is born out from the record that the victim belongs to the Scheduled Caste category and that the petitioner took advantage of her by taking her objectionable photographs and then blackmailing her on the promise of marrying her for a period of two- three years, and ultimately, the petitioner refused to marry her on the ground that the respondent no.3/girl belongs to a scheduled caste category. Hence, the FIR has been filed.

5. In these circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that prima facie a case under the above monition Sections are made out against the petitioner. Hence, there is no scope of entertaining the writ application. The same is accordingly dismissed.

6. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

(S.K.Mishra, J.)

Kaushal