WPCRL/820/2022
2022 Latest Caselaw 1555 UK

                   Office Notes, reports, orders
SL.                or proceedings or directions
          Date                                                     COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No                  and Registrar's order with
                           Signatures


      20.05.2022
                                                   WPCRL No. 820 of 2022
                                                   Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

Mr. Aditya Pratap Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners.

Mr. V.K. Gemini, Deputy Advocate General, for the State.

Mr. Ravi Bisht, Advocate, for the respondent.

The petitioners to the present writ petition are said to be accused for the commission of offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 336, 504 of IPC, registered at P.S. Manglaur, District Haridwar, by way of an FIR, being FIR No. 738 of 2021.

In the FIR in question, which was registered, as against the unknown persons, certain petitioners, who were said to have been found indulged in commission of the offences complained of, which was emanating from the set of allegations, which had been levelled against them on 02.08.2021, had approached the writ Court by filing a writ petition, being WP(CRL) No. 1526 of 2021, Ankit Pal Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others on 17.08.2021, whereby praying for quashing of the FIR. The writ petition was filed along with a Compounding Application, which was preferred under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C.

At the time when the aforesaid writ petition was taken, after its institution on 17.08.2021, the coordinate Bench of this Court, after hearing the learned Government Advocate, had disposed of the Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 1526 of 2021, on the basis of the Compounding Application No. 1/2021, Ankit Pal Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others, while making reference to the judgments as reported in 2003 (4) SCC 675, B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another; the judgment, as reported in 2008 (9) SCC 650, Nikhil Merchant Vs. CBI and another; and the judgment as reported in 2013 (1) SCC (Crl.) 160, Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another. The Compounding Application was allowed and the entire proceeding, which was emanating from the same FIR, which is presently under challenge in this writ petition, were laid to rest on the basis of the averments, which were made in the Compounding Application.

What is remarkable to be reckoned herein is, that when the compounding application arising from the same FIR, was taken into consideration by the coordinate Bench of this Court on 21.08.2021, the office of the learned Government Advocate was represented by Ms. Sonika Khulbe, the learned Brief Holder, for the State and no such prayer or request was ever made by the said office of Government Advocate, for completing their instructions, prior to passing the order on the compounding application, in the Writ Petition (CRL) No. 1526 of 2021, as it has been prayed for in the present writ petition. The reasons could be best known to the office of the Government Advocate, as to how they can the liberty to have a changed stand in relation to the same set of offences, arising from the same case crime number, which are the subject matter, which was commonly involved consideration in the Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 1526 of 2021, and the present writ petition, which too, is accompanied with a Compounding Application No. 1/2022. Mr. V.K. Gemini, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the State, prays for that he may be permitted to complete his instructions.

Unfortunately, this Court is unable to accept the logic of the learned Deputy Advocate General, as to how he would justify their stand in the present writ petition, which is in contradistinction to the stand which had been taken by them in the earlier Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 1526 of 2021, where they have permitted the coordinate Bench of this Court, to pass an order on the compounding application, even without calling for any instructions. The same set of counsels; the same set of allegations; and that too in relation to same FIR, where the accused were not named, there cannot be a different colours which could be adopted by the counsel, representing the State.

There are number of reasons, which this Court could have recorded, but is slightly hesitant to record the same. Hence, this writ petition too, would stand disposed of in terms of the compounding order passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in WPCRL No. 1526 of 2021, as disposed of on 21.08.2021. The offences complained of against the petitioner would stand compounded.

Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.

(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.) 20.05.2022 Mahinder/