ORDER

The present criminal writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner for the following reliefs:-

I. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned F.I.R. (Annexure-1) registered as Case Crime No.705/2020 Under Section – 307 P.S. Kotwali Roorkee District Haridwar on the basis of amicable settlement between the party.

II. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to arrest the petitioner in Case Crime No.705/2020 Under Section – 307 P.S. Kotwali Roorkee District Haridwar till the pendency of present petition.

III. Issue any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

2. By virtue of which he has prayed for quashing of the FIR No.705 of 2020, which was registered against him under Section 307 of the IPC at P.S. Kotwali Roorkee, District Haridwar and the complainant/respondent No.3 herein, subsequent to the institution of the present criminal writ petition, a Compounding Application No.2 of 2021, has been filed by the parties bearing their respective signatures, along with the signatures of their respective counsels. The parties are also present in-person before this Court, duly identified by their respective counsels.

3. The complainant had made a categorical statement before this Court that the nature of incident as it has been narrated and complained in the FIR in fact it never chanced, only a minor alteration did took place, but she was constraint to file a complaint on account of the pressure which was exerted by the other relatives. Hence, the FIR was registered. She has further informed that in fact, the petitioner before this Court, is her close relative and hence, she does not want to prosecute the applicant, in view of the ground and reasons which had already been narrated in the compounding application; wherein, she has also expressed, that the FIR, was as a consequence of the pressure which was exerted by the other relatives for the purposes of registration of the FIR.

4. The compounding application is being vehemently opposed by the learned Deputy Advocate General, on the ground that the offence complaint of against the petitioner, is not compoundable in view of the provisions contained under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; as it happens to be an offence, which is of a very grievous nature and having a vide repercussion. There cannot any doubt with regard to the contentions as it has been expressed by the counsel for the State; but the gravity and the parameters for its consideration, always varies in accordance with the circumstances of each and every case a uniform formula cannot always be adopted. The consideration of the impact, of non compound ability of Section 307 of IPC, in the present case has to be considered in a different context, where the complainant's statement itself is to the effect that the registration of the FIR, was not voluntarily done but was rather as the consequence of the pressure which was exerted on her and she voluntarily had expressed that she does not intend to further prosecute the applicant, because otherwise also, they are relatives which in an event of consequence of the prosecution will increase the animosity between the families.

5. The objection of the learned Deputy Advocate General, could stand ruled out by the judicial precedents, which had been settled down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and which I too had an occasion to deal with in a judgment rendered in Pan Singh Rana vs. State of Uttarakhand and another (2018)2 UD 680, which was in relation to the cognizance and compound ability of the offences, which are of a grievous nature having a social repercussions. It has been a consistent view of the Hon'ble Apex Court that the limitation imposed by the provisions contained under Section 320 Cr.P.C., cannot be imposed in its strict terms on the Constitutional Courts, which are exercising their inherent power, which are