IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Compounding Application (IA No. 2 of 2022)

In

Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 1142 of 2022

Jeet Singh and others

...………….

Petitioners

versus

State of Uttarakhand & others...…………. Respondents

Mr. M.K.Ray, learned counsel for the writ applicants.

Ms. Manisha Rana, learned Assistant Government Advocate for the

State.

Mr. Vinay Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the complainant.

-----------

Judgement dated: 08.07.2022

Hon’ble Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, J.

Upon hearing the learned counsels, the Court made the

following Order.

1.

Heard M.K.Ray, learned counsel for the writ

applicants, Ms. Manisha Chauhan, learned

Assistant Government Advocate for the State

and Mr. Vinay Singh Chauhan, learned counsel

for the respondent no.3.

2.

In this writ application, the petitioners prayed

for the following reliefs:

“ (i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of

certiorari quashing the impugned FIR dated

08.05.2022, being FIR No. 83 of 2022, under

Sections 147,148,307,506 IPC, lodged at P.S.

Gadarpur, District Udham Singh Nagar in

terms of compromise between the parties.

(ii)

Issue any other order or direction which this

Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the

circumstances of the case.

2

(iii)

To allow the writ petition and award the cost

of it in favour of the petitioners.”

3.

A compounding application being IA No. 2 of

2022 has been filed by the parties to quash the

FIR dated 08.05.2022, as they have settled

their disputes amicably. Both the parties are

present in person and submitted identity proof,

namely, Aadhar Card and the parties are duly

identified by their respective counsel. This

Court is satisfied with their identification.

4.

It is submitted that Harman Singh@ Harmanjot

Singh/petitioner no.1 is minor and his father-

guardian Jeet Singh is present. Parties have

amicably settled their disputes.

5.

I perused the Adhar Cards of both the parties.

Parties are duly identified by their respective

counsel. I am satisfied that there is an amicable

settlement between the parties.

6.

Learned counsel for the State objects to the

application for compromise on the ground that

Sections

147

and

307

IPC

are

non

compoundable offences. However, in view of the

fact that compounding of an offence under

Section 320 of the Code and quashing of the

FIR on the basis of compromise are two

different thing, the Writ Petition (Crl) should be

allowed.

7.

Learned Assistant Government Advocate Ms.

Manisha Rana would rely upon the case State

3

of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan (2019) 5

SCC 688, especially para 27 of the judgement

and would submit that the offence under

Section 307 IPC is a heinous offence and the

injured has sustained grievous injury inflicted

by Gurvinder Singh i.e. petitioner no. 3 and the

offence of Section 307 IPS is being investigated.

8.

However, keeping in view the totality of the fact,

especially, the fact that all the petitioners and

the injured Pawandeep Singh and the informant

belong to the same family and occurrence took

place out of a small family dispute and also that

the parties have already settled their disputes

and it will render exercise of criminal trial

futile, may result in wastage of public money

and time and it is a fit case, in which, the FIR

should

be

quashed.

Continuance

of

the

criminal investigation would be an abuse of

process of law.

9.

The above offences are hereby allowed to be

compounded, and therefore, the impugned FIR

as mentioned above is hereby quashed.

10. The compounding application as well as the

writ application stands disposed of in terms of

compromise arrived at between the parties.

11. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on

proper application.

(S.K.Mishra, J.)

Kaushal

4