HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition Criminal No. 1332 of 2024

29 April, 2025 Chaudhary Sameer Sohi --Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and Ors . --Respondents ----------------------------------------------------------------------

Presence:-

Mr. Shashi Kant Shandilya, learned counsel for petitioner.

Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned A.G.A. with Ms. Sweta Badola Dobhal, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent Nos.1 and 2.

Mr. Vishwaketu Vaidya, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4.

Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2. Delay in filing the objection is condoned. Delay Condonation Application (IA/3/2025) made therefor, is allowed. Objection filed by the State is taken on record.

3. By means of the present writ petition, petitioner has put to challenge the FIR No.95 of 2024 dated 15.02.2024, for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 323 and 506 IPC, registered with Police Station Manglore, District Haridwar, in view of the compromise entered into between the parties.

4. Along with present criminal writ petition, a joint compounding application (IA/1/2024) is filed and signed duly supported by separate affidavits by petitioner, respondent Nos.3 and 4.

5. In the compounding application, it has been stated by the parties that there is no grievance of respondent Nos.3 and 4 against the petitioner and they are ready to compound the offence as alleged against the petitioner; it is the case of simple injury as per the First Information Report and Medical Report of alleged injured, therefore the alleged offence may be compound with the permission of this Court; the dispute between the petitioner and respondent Nos.3 & 4 has been settled with the intervention of respected person of the society and the village and now they are living happily without any grudges. It is thus, prayed that the present first information report be quashed in terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties.

6. Petitioner-Chaudhary Sameer Sohi, respondent No.3-Pravendra Kumar (informant) and respondent No.4-Shaurya (injured) are present before this Court being duly identified by their respective counsel. On interaction, respondent Nos.3 and 4 stated that they do not want to prosecute the above case against the petitioner in view of the amicable settlement arrived at between them with the intervention of respected person of the society and the village. They fairly conceded that they have no objection if compounding application is allowed.

7. 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 109 of B.N.S. Act i.e. attempt to murder.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner 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.

9. 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 regard to the fact that the parties have amicably settled their disputes