SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(UK) 730

R.C.KHULBE
RAGHAV MEHRA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND – Respondent


Advocates:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Piyush Garg, Learned Counsel
For the State : Mr. Lalit Miglani, Learned AGA and Mr. Ravi Bisht, Learned Counsel

JUDGMENT

Hon'ble R.C. Khulbe, J.

By means of this writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners seek to quash the impugned FIR bearing No.0025 of 2021 registered under Sections 308, 326, 324, 325, 323, 504, 506 and 34 of IPC at P.S. Mussoorie, District Dehradun.

2. The parties have filed the above-numbered compounding application to show that they have buried their differences and have settled their disputes amicably. They are also present before the Court today being duly identified by their respective counsel.

3. Learned counsel for the State opposes the compounding application.

4. It is contended by learned counsel for the writ petitioners that the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 325, 504, 506 IPC are compoundable whereas offences under Sections 308, 326, 34 IPC are non-compoundable offences.

5. The Apex Court has dealt with the consequence of a compromise in regard to non-compoundable offences in the case of B.S. Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana and another, (2003) 4 SCC 675 and has held as below:-

“6. In Pepsi Food Ltd. & Anr. v. Special Judicial Magistrate & Ors. [(1998) 5 SCC 749], this Court with reference to Bhajan Lal's

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top