21 May vs State Of Uttarakhand And Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 2723 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

21 May vs State Of Uttarakhand And Ors on 21 May, 2025

Author: Pankaj Purohit

Bench: Pankaj Purohit

                                                       2025:UHC:4237



HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 No. 1072 of 2024
                           21 May, 2025
Narendra And Ors.                                      --Applicants
                               Versus
State Of Uttarakhand and Ors.                       --Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
      Mr. Pankaj Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the
      applicants.
      Mr. S.S. Chauhan, learned D.A.G. with Mr. Vikas
      Uniyal, learned Brief Holder for the State of
      Uttarakhand/respondent No.1.
      Ms. Neeti Rana, learned counsel for respondent
      Nos.2 to 4.

Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. By means of the present C482 application, the applicant has put to challenge the Charge Sheet dated 16.03.2020, summoning order dated 23.01.2021 and entire proceedings of Sessions Trial No.42 of 2019 State Vs. Suraj and Others, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 504, 506 IPC, pending before the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Roorkee, District Haridwar.

3. Along with the present C482 application, a joint compounding application (IA/1/2024) is filed duly supported by separate affidavits by applicants and respondent Nos.2 to 4.

4. In the compounding application, it has been stated by the parties that they have settled their dispute amicably on the intervention of residents of nearby places and respectable persons from both the sides and the respondent Nos.2 to 4 do not want to pursue with the case anymore.

2025:UHC:4237

5. Applicants-Narendra, Sawan, Amit, respondent No.2-Kurban (informant), respondent No.3- Salman (injured) and respondent No.4-Firoz (injured) are present before this Court, who are duly identified by their respective counsels. On interaction, respondent Nos.2 to 4 categorically stated that they are neighbours and the matter is now amicably settled by them with the intervention of respectable persons from both the sides, therefore, they want to end the matter.

6. Learned State Counsel raised a preliminary objection to the effect that the offences sought to be compounded are non-compoundable. He further objected to the compounding application on the ground that the offences sought to be compounded are very heinous like 307 of IPC i.e. attempt to murder.

7. Learned counsel for the applicants relied upon a judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jaiveer Malik & Another Vs. The State of Delhi passed in Criminal Appeal Nos.864-866 of 2024, wherein, the proceedings arising out of FIR No.223 of 2016 were set aside, which too were registered under Section 307 of IPC, taking recourse of Yogendra Yadav case as noted below.

8. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Yogendra Yadav and Others Vs. State of Jharkhand and Another reported in (2014) 9 SCC 653, in Para 4 it has been observed as under:

"4. Now, the question before this Court is whether this Court can compound the offences under Sections 326 and 307 of the IPC which are non-compoundable. Needless to say that offences which are non-compoundable cannot be compounded by the court. Courts draw the power of compounding offences from Section 320 of the Code. The said provision has to be strictly followed (Gian Singh v. State of Punjab) (2012) 10 SCC 303. However, in a given case, the High Court can quash a criminal proceeding in exercise of its power under Section 482 of the Code having

2025:UHC:4237 regard to the fact that the parties have amicably settled their disputes and the victim has no objection, even though the offences are non-compoundable. In which cases the High Court can exercise its discretion to quash the proceedings will depend on facts and circumstances of each case. Offences which involve moral turpitude, grave offences like rape, murder etc. cannot be effaced by quashing the proceedings because that will have harmful effect on the society. Such offences cannot be said to be restricted to two individuals or two groups. If such offences are quashed, it may send wrong signal to the society. However, when the High Court is convinced that the offences are entirely personal in nature and, therefore, do not affect public peace or tranquility and where it feels that quashing of such proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace and would secure ends of justice, it should not hesitate to quash them. In such cases, the prosecution becomes a lame prosecution. Pursuing such a lame prosecution would be waste of time and energy. That will also unsettle the compromise and obstruct restoration of peace."

9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court is of the view that 'if Court is convinced that the offences are entirely personal in nature and, therefore, do not affect public peace or tranquility and where it feels that quashing of such proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace and would secure ends of justice, it should not hesitate to quash them. In such cases, the prosecution becomes a lame prosecution. Pursuing such a lame prosecution would be waste of time and energy. That will also unsettle the compromise and obstruct restoration of peace'.

10. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the principle enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Yogendra Yadav (Supra), which is reiterated in Jaiveer Malik (Supra), this Court is of the opinion that since the parties have reached to the terms of the compromise, there would remain a remote or bleak possibility of conviction in this case. It can also safely be inferred that it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to

2025:UHC:4237 permit continuation of the criminal proceedings. Since the answer to the aforesaid points is in affirmative, this Court finds it a fit case to permit the parties to compound the matter.

11. Accordingly, compounding application (IA/1/ 2024) is allowed.

12. In view of the above, the present C482 application is allowed in terms of the compromise. The entire proceedings of Sessions Trial No.42 of 2019 State Vs. Suraj and Others, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 504, 506 IPC, pending before the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Roorkee, District Haridwar, is hereby quashed qua the applicants, subject to payment of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) by each of the applicants, in the Uttarakhand High Court Bar Association Advocates' Welfare Fund, simply for the reason of wasting public time of investigating agency and to act as deterrent against the applicants in future for venturing such a dare devil act/offence. Resultantly, the Charge Sheet dated 16.03.2020 filed by P.S. Manglaur, District Haridwar and FIR No.669 of 2018 dated 31.10.2018 stand quashed qua the applicants with the aforesaid condition.

(Pankaj Purohit, J.) 21.05.2025 PN PREETI

DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,

2.5.4.20=63c75a8c4765581180a58d7478fadb e38331bac55c78b5f9f0276c16432f6aab,

NEGI postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=2BA53171893B3C3CB3CCCAE8 1FAE064498483A83D84BDB0F9229D5BF08D 959AC, cn=PREETI NEGI Date: 2025.05.21 15:44:18 +05'30'