SL.

No

Date

Office Notes, reports,

orders or proceedings

or directions and

Registrar’s order with

Signatures

COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS

C-482 No.1964 of 2022

Hon’ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

Mr. Mehboob Rahi, Advocate for the

applicant.

Mr. Atul Kumar Shah, Deputy Advocate

General assisted by Mrs. Mamta Joshi and Ms.

Sangeeta Bhardwaj, Brief Holder for the State of

Uttarakhand.

The respondent no.3 who is present in person

before this Court is a complainant of an FIR being

FIR No.293 of 2016, which he got registered, as

against the present applicant for trying him for the

offence under Sections 295(A), 504, 506 of IPC and

Section 67 of Information and Technology Act.

To the FIR, which was registered on

06.10.2016, the matter was investigated upon and

the Investigating Officer, while submitting the

Charge Sheet No.277 of 2017 dated 13.07.2017,

had submitted the charge sheet against the present

applicant for trying him for the offence under

Sections 298, 504 and 500 of IPC and Section 67 of

the Information Technology Act.

It is on the submission of the charge sheet,

that the cognizance has been taken by the Judicial

Magistrate, Sitarganj, District Udham Singh Nagar

by registering a Criminal Case No.33 of 2018, State

vs. Ali Hasan, whereby the applicant has been

summoned for being tried for the offence under

Section 298, 504 and 506 of IPC and Section 67 of

Information Technology Act.

Later on, a better sense prevailed between the

parties and the parties to the proceedings have filed

their compounding application, which has been

duly signed by them and has also been verified by

their respective learned counsel appearing on their

behalf. Apart from the fact, that the parties, who too

have appeared in person before this Court

particularly, the complainant has made a statement

before this Court, that in view of the subsequent

development and the grounds, which has been

referred to in the compounding application, they

have

settled

their

scores

and

the

complainant/respondent no.3 herein, does not

intend to further prosecute the present applicant in

relation to the offence for which the cognizance

have been taken.

The compounding application is being

opposed by Government Advocate on the ground

that the nature of offence, which has been

complaint of in the FIR, is serious enough and no

compounding application under Section 320 of

Cr.P.C. should be considered by this Court. The

offence on which the cognizance have been taken,

the law provided under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. does

not carve out any distinction, that if the offence on

which the cognizance have been taken and if are

included under Section 320 of Cr.P.C., the set of

seriousness of allegations will in itself amount to

oust the particular provisions from the ambit of

Section 320 of Cr.P.C.

In that eventuality, this argument extended

by the learned Government Advocate, on the basis

of an exclusive seriousness, which is being attached

by the respondent no.1 to the provisions contained

under Section 298 of IPC, is not acceptable by this

Court.

Owing to the fact that the parties have

resolved their dispute and the complainant, do not

want to further prosecute the applicant any further

in Criminal Case No.33 of 2018 State vs. Ali

Hasan, which is pending consideration before the

court of Judicial Magistrate, Sitarganj, District

Udham Singh Nagar, since the parties have already

resolved their dispute, it will be a fruitless exercise

to force them to participate in the proceedings of

trial, which the complainant do not intend to

proceed against the present applicant.

Considering the fact that since all the

offences are compoundable under Section 320 of

Cr.P.C. and that the parties have resolved their

dispute outside the Court, no fruitful purpose would

be served to carry out the proceedings of Criminal

Case No.33 of 2018, State vs. Ali Hasan pending

consi