Uttarakhand High Court
Lavi Gangwar vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others on 7 September, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Compounding Application (IA No. 1 of 2022)
In
Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 1693 of 2022
Lavi Gangwar ....... Petitioner
versus
State of Uttarakhand & others................ Respondents
Mr. Rajkumar Singh, learned counsel for the writ applicant.
Ms. Manisha Rana, learned AGA for the State.
Ms. Radha Arya, learned counsel for the respondent no.3.
-----------
Judgement dated: 07.09.2022
Hon'ble Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, J.
Upon hearing the learned counsel, the Court made the
following Order.
1. This writ application has been filed for
quashing of the FIR No. 065 of 2022, for the
offences punishable under Section 66-A of
Information Technology Act, 2000 and Section
506 IPC of the Indian Penal, Police Station
Banbasa, District Chamapwat.
2. The Police has registered the case under
Section 66-A of the Information Technology Act,
2000, in spite of the fact that the said Section
has been declared ultra vires by the
Constitutional Bench of Hon'ble Supreme
Court. Learned counsel for the applicant
however would submit that it has been done
due to typographical mistake and the
investigation is going under section 67-A of the
Information Technology Act, 2000. In that view
of the matter, (Section 67-A shall be read in
place of Section 66-A) as the same has been
deleted). Moreover, the same has been declared
ultra virus by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
3. A compounding application being IA No. 1 of
2022 has been filed by the parties for disposing
of the case on the basis of compromise arrived
at between the parties with prayer to quash the
FIR dated 14.07.2022, as the parties have
settled their disputes amicably. Both the parties
are present in person and submitted their
identity proofs, namely, Aadhar Cards and the
parties are duly identified by their respective
counsel. This Court is satisfied with their
identifications. Learned counsel for the parties
submit that the matter has been settled
between them.
4. I have perused the respective Adhar Cards of all
the parties. I am satisfied that there is an
amicable settlement between the parties.
5. However, learned counsel for the State not
seriously objects to the application for
compromise as the offences complained of
against the applicant is compoundable.
However, in view of the fact that compounding
of an offence under Section 320 of the Code and
quashing of the FIR on the basis of compromise
are two different things. Though these offences
are not compoundable under Section 320 of the
Code, but the High Court in exercise of
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India is duly authorized to
quash an FIR or criminal proceedings by
issuing a writ of Certiorari in this case.
Moreover, these type of cases are not expected
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the two
judgments i.e. Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab
(2012) 10 SCC 303 and State of Madhya
Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan (2019) 5 SCC 688.
Accordingly the compounding application is
allowed.
6. Keeping in view the totality of the fact,
especially, the fact that all the petitioners and
the complainant (respondent no. 3) have
already settled their disputes and it will render
exercise of criminal trial futile, may result in
wastage of public money and time and it is a fit
case, in which, the FIR should be quashed.
Continuance of the criminal investigation would
be an abuse of process of law.
7. The above offences are hereby allowed to be
compounded, and therefore, the impugned FIR
as mentioned above, is hereby quashed.
Accordingly, the Writ Application is also allowed
on the basis of compromise arrived at between
the parties.
(S.K.Mishra, J.)
(Grant urgent copy of this order as per Rules)
Kaushal
