Pinky And Another ....... ... vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 2866 UK

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL


        Compounding Application (IA No. 1 of 2022)

                               In

         Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 1108 of 2022


Pinky and another                        .......          Petitioners

                              versus

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



Ms. Neetu Singh and Mr. Pankaj Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for
the writ applicants.
Ms. Manisha Rana, learned AGA for the State.
Mr. Aakib Ahmed, learned counsel for the respondent no.3.

                           -----------

                  Judgement dated: 08.09.2022

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. 0426 of 2022, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 508 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Police Station Bagwanpur, District Haridwar.

2. 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 21.05.2022, 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 the parties.

3. I have perused the respective Adhar Cards of all the parties. I am satisfied that there is an amicable settlement between the parties.

4. However, learned counsel for the State submits that the offence under Section 420 IPC is compoundable offence with the permission of the Court. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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