Back
2020 Supreme(UK) 299
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Ravindra Maithani, J.
Irfan Ali Alias Irfan And Others - Appellant
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand And Others - Respondent
Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 1575 of 2020
Decided On : 09-10-2020
Harshpal Sekhon, Advocate, V.S. Chauhan, Advocate, Vikas Kumar Guglani, Advocate
The court can quash an FIR based on an amicable settlement between the parties, especially when the nature of the incident is small and the parties live together.
Headnote:
Compounding - Quashing of FIR - Summary: The court allowed the quashing of FIR No. 300 of 2020, under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/25 of the Arms Act, 1959, based on the amicable settlement arrived at between the parties. The court considered the settlement of disputes between the parties and the small nature of the incident, leading to the decision to quash the FIR.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought the quashing of FIR No. 300 of 2020, under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/25 of the Arms Act, 1959, based on an amicable settlement arrived at between the parties.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the parties had settled their disputes amicably and lived together, leading to the decision to quash the FIR.
Issues: The main issue was whether the court should allow the quashing of the FIR based on the amicable settlement between the parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the settlement of disputes between the parties and the small nature of the incident, leading to the decision to quash the FIR.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the FIR in question was quashed based on the amicable settlement between the parties.
JUDGMENT
Ravindra Maithani, J. - Petitioners seek quashing of FIR No. 300 of 2020, under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/25 of the Arms Act, 1959, Police Station Gadarpur, District Udham Singh Nagar (for short "the case").
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing.
3. According to FIR, on 19th September, 2020, the petitioners abused and assaulted the informant. Meanwhile, people gathered there and when they apprehended, a country made pistol was recovered from the petitioner Irfan Ali alias Irfan.
4. The petition has been filed on the ground of amicable settlement arrived at between the parties. A joint compounding application along with affidavits has been filed by the petitioners and the informant.
4. Petitioners, who have been identified by their counsel Mr. Harshpal Sekhon, Advocate and the respondent no. 4, who is the informant, is identified by Mr. Vikas Kumar Guglani, Advocate, have joined this proceeding through video conferencing. They have stated that they have settled the disputes amicably. Respondent no. 4, the informant, categorically states that they live together, therefore, settled the disputes.
5. On behalf of the State, it is objected that the offence under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act, 1959 is also against the petitioners.
6. On behalf of the petitioners, it is submitted that earlier also this High Court in the case of Vikar Singh vs. State of Uttarakhand and another,2017 SCConlineUttra 1385 , permitted compounding of the offence, even when the offence was under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 also.
7. The dispute arose from a small incident. Parties, who live together, have settled their disputes. Therefore, this Court is of the view that there is no reason to allow the prosecution to continue. Accordingly, the petition deserves to be allowed.
8. The petition is allowed.
9. The FIR in question is quashed.
10. The compounding application is disposed of accordingly.
