Uttarakhand High Court
Ankush Ghildiyal And Others ... vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 12 October, 2023
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
NAINITAL
Criminal Writ Petition No.1406 of 2023
With
Compounding Application IA No.1 of 2023
Ankush Ghildiyal and Others ....Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others ....Respondents
Present:-
Mr. Sachin Panwar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. M.A. Khan, A.G.A. with Mr. Vipul Painuly, Brief Holder
for the State.
Mr. Navnish Negi, Advocate for the respondent nos. 3 to 6.
JUDGMENT
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
The petitioners- Ankush Ghildiyal, Tanishk
Dabral, Damandeep seek quashing of FIR No.193 of 2023,
under Sections 323, 504, 307 and 34 IPC, Police Station
Kotdwar, District Pauri Garhwal, on the basis of amicable
settlement between the parties. A joint compounding
application has been filed along with the affidavits.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
3. According to the FIR, on 08.09.2023, at 7:15 in
the morning, the petitioners attacked respondent no.4,
Rakshit Singhal, and Others. The informant, when resisted,
was attacked with a knife. Respondent no.6, Nitin Diwakar,
was hit on his head, due to which, he sustained serious
injuries. The medical injury report of the informant and
injured is placed as Annexure No.3. There is injury on the
head also. .
4. At the very outset, the Court wanted to know
from learned counsel for the parties as to how offence under
Section 307 IPC may be permitted to be compounded when
there are injuries on three victims, including injury on head of
one of the victims.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner and the
informant and injured would submit that it was a dispute
between the college students; they have settled the dispute;
they have a bright career ahead. Therefore, at this stage, if the
matter is not closed, it may affect their career prospects.
6. The offences, which are not otherwise
compounded, may be permitted to be compounded by this
Court in a writ jurisdiction. There are certain guidelines,
which are to be observed in such matters.
7. Insofar as the offence under Section 307 IPC is
concerned, in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi
Narayan and Others, (2019) 5 SCC 688. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court, in Para 15.4 laid down the guidelines. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court observed as hereunder:-
"15.4. Offences under Section 307 IPC and the
Arms Act, etc. would fall in the category of heinous
and serious offences and therefore are to be treated as
crime against the society and not against the
individual alone, and therefore, the criminal
proceedings for the offence under Section 307 IPC
and/or the Arms Act, etc. which have a serious impact
on the society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers
under Section 482 of the Code, on the ground that the
parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst
themselves. 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 framing 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. However, such an
exercise by the High Court would be permissible only
after the evidence is collected after investigation and
the charge-sheet is filed/charge is framed and/or
during the trial. Such exercise is not permissible when
the matter is still under investigation. Therefore, the
ultimate conclusion in paras 29.6 and 29.7 of the
decision of this Court in Narinder Singh v. State of
Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 : (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 54
should be read harmoniously and to be read as a
whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove;"
8. In the instant case, injury report of three injured
has been filed. As per medical report of injured Nitin Diwakar,
he had injury behind his head.
9. In view of the law, as laid down in the case of
Laxmi Narayan (supra), the question of permission to
compound the offence, in such cases, may only be considered
once investigation is complete, not at this stage. Therefore,
the Court refuses to permit compounding of the offence.
Accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed at the
stage of admission itself.
10. The petition is dismissed in limine.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
12.10.2023
Ravi Bisht
