Uttarakhand High Court
Tameen And Others. ... vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 26 April, 2024
Author: Rakesh Thapliyal
Bench: Rakesh Thapliyal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
Compounding Application No. 1 of 2024
In
Criminal Misc. Application No. 47 of 2024
Tameen and others. ................Applicants.
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others. .........Respondents.
Present:
Mr. Lalit Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants.
Mr. V.K. Gemini, learned Deputy Advocate General with Mr. Saurabh Pandey, learned Brief Holder for the State.
Mr. Yogesh Upadhyay, learned counsel, holding brief of Mr. P.C. Pethshali, learned counsel for the respondent
nos. 2 to 10.
And
Compounding Application No. 1 of 2024
In
Criminal Misc. Application No. 49 of 2024
Mohabbat and others. ................Applicants.
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others. .........Respondents.
Present:
Mr. Yogesh Upadhyay, learned counsel, holding brief of Mr. P.C. Pethshali, learned counsel for the applicants.
Mr. V.K. Gemini, learned Deputy Advocate General with Mr. Saurabh Pandey, learned Brief Holder for the State.
Mr. Lalit Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3.
Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J.
1. Both C482 applications have been moved along with
compounding applications, which are supported with the
affidavits of applicants, respondents/ complainants and victims.
2. In C482 application no. 47 of 2024 complainant is Mustafa
and in C482 application no. 49 of 2024 complainant is Farman
Tyagi.
3. Applicants of both the C482 applications as well as
respondents including complainants and victims are present in
person before this Court and they are duly identified by their
respective counsels.
4. This Court has also interacted with injured - Smt. Islaman,
wife of Gaffar and Smt. Sharda Parveen, wife of Jaan Alam, who
as per prosecution case, are victims, as both of them submit that
the applicants and respondents of both the applications are close
relatives and have settled their dispute and do not want to
pursue the case and they are living in harmony. Applicants of
both the cases are facing trial for the offences punishable under
Section 147, 148, 323, 307, 452, 504, 506 IPC and both the FIRs
were lodged at Police Station - Jhabrera, District - Haridwar. The
incident was happened on 23.02.2015 and in respect of same
incident two cross FIRs were registered, one was lodged by
Mustafa registered as Case Crime No. 24 of 2015 dated 23.02.2015
at 05.15 p.m. and another FIR was lodged by Farman Tyagi
registered as Case Crime No. 23 of 2015 dated 23.02.2015 at 08.30
a.m. After investigation, charge-sheets were filed in both the
cases and cognizance was taken and trials of both the cases are
going on.
5. Mr. V.K. Gemini, learned Deputy Advocate General for the
State submits that during trial, two star injured witnesses have
been declared hostile, who are also present in the Court, namely
Smt. Islaman and Smt. Sharda Parveen.
6. According to the State Counsel, injuries are not dangerous
to life, particularly, when injured persons are present in the
Court. He further submits that the injured star witnesses have
been declared hostile and they have settled their dispute
amicably and they are relatives and residing in the same village
and locality and chance of their conviction is very remote,
therefore, no useful purpose would be served to continue with
these proceedings.
7. He further submits that there is another factor that all the
applicants and respondents in both the applications are close
relatives and are residing in the same village and locality and for
some small issue this incident happened and now, both the
parties have settled their dispute and they are living happily,
which results in harmony between both the parties, which is
evident from the fact that these FIRs were lodged in the year 2015
and charge-sheets were filed on 20.09.2015 and trials are going on
and since then, almost 8 years have passed but no such untoward
incident was happened between the parties.
8. 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"
9. Mr. V.K. Gemini, learned Deputy Advocate General for the
State submits that in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Narinder Singh (supra), these
offences can be compounded, particularly, keeping in view the
fact that applicants, respondents and victims are close relatives
and they are residing in the same village and locality and now,
they have settled their dispute and injured witnesses are also
present in the Court and they were declared hostile and no
untoward incident has been reported between the parties since
2015.
10. I have also perused the injury report, which is also part of
the record. The doctor opined that injuries are grievous in nature,
however, it appears from the injury report that these injuries are
not danger to life.
11. After taking into consideration all these aspects, this Court
is of the view that both the compounding applications deserve to
be allowed. Accordingly, both the compounding applications are
allowed.
12. Entire proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 220 of 2017 (State
Vs. Tameen and others) and Sessions Trial No. 297 of 2015 (State
Vs. Mohabbat and others) pending the Court of 1st Addl. Session
Judge, Roorkee, District - Haridwar are quashed.
__________________
Rakesh Thapliyal, J.
26.04.2024
SKS
