Uttarakhand High Court
C482/699/2024 on 25 April, 2024
Author: Rakesh Thapliyal
Bench: Rakesh Thapliyal
Office Notes, reports,
orders or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions and COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No
Registrar's order with
Signatures
C482 No.699 of 2024
Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J.
1. Ms. Ruchita Kandpal, learned counsel for
the applicant.
2. Mr. Saurabh Pandey, learned Brief Holder
and Ms. Meenakshi Sharma, learned Brief Holder
for the State.
3. Mr. Siddharth Singh Negi, learned counsel
for respondent nos.2,3,4 & 5.
4. Present C482 application has been moved
alongwith compounding application supported
with the affidavit of applicant and respondent
nos.2, 3, 4 & 5. The applicant and respondent
nos.2, 3, 4 & 5 are present in the Court.
Applicant is cousin brother of respondent no.2.
Respondent no.3 is mother of respondent no.2;
respondent no.4 is grandmother of applicant as
well as respondent nos.2 and 5. Respondent
nos. 2 & 5 are real brother and sister and the
present applicant is cousin brother. All of them
are identified by their respective counsels.
5. It is contended by the learned counsel for
the applicant that it is a joint family and all of
them are living together in one house including
the present applicant. It is submitted that due to
some misunderstanding since there was some
family dispute, this incident was unfortunately
happened in which certain injuries were
sustained by respondent no.5.
6. This Court also interacted with respondent
no.5 cousin sister of the applicant and she
submits that on the date of the incident she
sustained certain injuries in her hand and now
she is fine; she has also submits that applicant
is also living with them as they are in the joint
family.
7. This Court also interacted with Smt.
Chandrawati, who is 73 years old and is present
in the Court physically. She submits that the
present applicant is also her grandson and living
with her and there is a joint family; all of them
are living happily and this is unfortunate
incident, which was happened and now they
settled their dispute and even after this incident
all of them are living happily together.
8. Ms. Meenakshi Sharma, learned Brief
Holder for the State submits that primafacie the
allegations appears to be a family dispute and
due to the family dispute this incident was
happened. However, since all the parties are
present in the Court and the injured, who is
cousin sister of the applicant and respondent
no.2-informant, who are present in the Court,
they also on interaction submit that they do not
want to pursue this case, therefore, it will be a
futile exercise to continue this proceeding
particularly when the applicant is living with the
respondents in a joint family.
9. Mr. Saurabh Pandey, learned Brief Holder
also present in the Court and he submits that no
doubt the offences punishable under Section 307
and 452 IPC are not compoundable but in view
of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court
in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State Punjab
and another, (2012) 10 SCC 303 primafacie
there appears to be a family dispute and this
appears to be an unfortunate incident, which has
happened and since all of them are present in
the Court particularly the complainant and
victim, who submits that they do not want to
pursue the case since applicant is cousin brother
and is living with them, therefore, these
proceedings can be dropped.
10. Apart from this, learned counsel for both
the parties have placed reliance on the judgment
rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Narinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab
and others (2014) 6 SCC 466 wherein in
reference to Section 307 IPC certain factors
were described by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
for compounding of the offence. The relevant
extract of said judgment in paragraph 29.6 is
being reproduced herein as under:
"29.6. Offences under Section 307 IPC
would fall in the category of heinous and
serious offences and therefore are to be
generally treated as crime against the
society and not against the individual
alone. 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
proving 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. Medical
report in respect of injuries suffered by the
victim can generally be the guiding factor.
On the basis of this prima facie analysis,
the High Court can examine as to whether
there is a strong possibility of conviction or
the chances of conviction are remote and
bleak. In the former case it can refuse to
accept the settlement and quash the
criminal proceedings whereas in the latter
case it would be permissible for the High
Court to accept the plea compounding the
offence based on complete settlement
between the parties. At this stage, the
Court can also be swayed by the fact that
the settlement between the parties is going
to result in harmony between them which
may improve their future relationship"
11. Since the applicant is living with the
respondents and it is a joint family and
respondent no.4, who is grandmother and 73
years of age is present in the Court, who also on
interaction submits that present applicant is her
grand-son, this Court is of the view that
compounding application deserves to be allowed.
Accordingly, compounding application is allowed.
12. Entire proceedings of Sessions Trial No.
205 of 2022 (State of Uttarakhand Vs. Lalit
Yadav) pending in the court of 1st Additional
Sessions Judge, Kashipur, District Udham Singh
Nagar are quashed.
13. C482 application is disposed of accordingly.
(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)
25.04.2024
Arti
