HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 No. 973 of 2023

01^st April, 2025 Charanjeet Singh and others ……...Applicants Versus State of Uttarakhand and another ………Respondents ----------------------------------------------------------------------

Presence:-

Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate for the applicants.

Mr. K.S. Bora, D.A.G. with Ms. J.P. Kandpal, B.H. for the State.

Mr. Prashant Khanna, Advocate for respondent no.2.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)

Amendment Application (IA No.5 of 2025)

An amendment application has been filed by learned counsel for the applicants for seeking amendment in the memo of parties by replacing father’s name of applicant no.4-Ranjeet Singh from “Shri Avtar Singh” to “Shri Charanjeet Singh”.

2. The amendment sought for is purely formal in nature;

therefore, it is not opposed by learned State counsel.

3. Accordingly, amendment application is allowed.

4. Let necessary amendment be incorporated by the applicants by filing an amendment memo of parties, in the present C482 application, during the course of the day, as per Rules.

Impleadment Application (IA No.4 of 2025)

5. An impleadment application has been filed by learned counsel for the applicants to implead injured “Bhupendra Singh” as “respondent no.3/injured”.

6. Since impleadment application is necessary under law, accordingly impleadment application is allowed.

7. Let necessary impleadment be incorporated by the applicants by filing an amended memo of parties, in the present C482 application, during the course of the day, as per Rules.

C482 No. 973 of 2023

8. By means of the present C482 application, the applicants have put to challenge the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.544 of 2021, State of Uttarakhand Vs. Charanjeet Singh and others, under Sections 323, 324, 326, 504, 506, 308 IPC and Section 25 (1-B)(b) of Arms Act, 1959, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Sitarganj, District Udham Singh Nagar as well as the charge sheet dated 28.01.2021 and summoning order dated 12.07.2021, passed by the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Sitarganj, District Udham Singh Nagar.

9. A joint Compounding Application (IA No.1 of 2023) has been filed by the parties in the present C482 application stating therein that the matter has now been amicably settled between the parties as they are neighbours and want to live peacefully.

10. Today all the applicants and respondent nos.2 and3 are present, physically, except applicant no.4-Ranjeet Singh, who is present, through video conferencing, before this Court. They are duly identified by their respective Advocates.

11. On interaction with the parties, it was found that they do not want to prolong the matter any further and want to settle their dispute amicably.

12. Objection was called from the State and it is objected by the State that it’s a case of heinous offences allegedly committed by the applicants, therefore, the same should not have been compounded. Further it is submitted that Sections 308 and 326 of IPC are non compoundable.

13. Learned counsel for the applicant pressed in service the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jaiveer Malik & another Vs. The State of Delhi passed in Criminal Appeal Nos.864-866/2024, wherein the proceedings arising out of F.I.R.

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.

14. 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 its para no.4 has stated as hereunder:-

“4. Now, the question before this Court is whether this Court can compound the offences under Sections 326 and 307 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 provisi