High CourtsSingle Bench

ATEEK AHMAD vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 25 May 2018 · Citation: (2018) 05 UK CK 0126

HON’BLE JUDGES
V.K. BIST, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 406, 420, 506
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 945 of 2018 with CLMA No.6907 of 2018 (Compounding Application)

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

21 paragraphs · 417 words
1.

This petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the F.I.R. registered as FIR No.410 of 2017, under Section 420, 406 & 506 of IPC, Police

Station Nehru Colony, and District Dehradun on the ground that the dispute has been amicably settled between the parties and the offence has been

compounded. Along with this writ petition, joint compounding application has also been filed by the parties. In support of compounding application,

affidavits have been filed by Mr. Ateek Ahmad (petitioner) and Mr. Virendra Dabral (respondent no.3/complainant). It is submitted by the learned

counsel for the parties that the parties have entered into the compromise and the respondent no.3 does not want to pursue his case against the

petitioner. It is prayed that the offences punishable under Section 420, 406 & 506 of IPC, arising out of F.I.R. No.410 of 2017, registered at Police

Station Nehru Colony District Dehradun, may be compounded and the F.I.R. may be quashed.Â

2.

Petitioner and respondent no.3 (complainant) are present in the Court today and they are duly identified by their respective counsel. Petitioner and

respondent no.3 (complainant) categorically stated that the dispute has been settled between them and there is no grievance remained between them

and they are ready to compound the offences.Â

3.

Learned counsel for the respondent no.3 submitted that dispute between the parties have now been settled amicably and they are left with no

grudges and, now, they want to live peacefully in future. Â

4.

In view of the principle of law laid down by Hon’ble the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in 2012 (10) SCC

303 as well as in Transfer Petition (Criminal) No. 115 of 2012 (Dimpey Gujral vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh) decided on 06.12.2012, criminal

proceedings can be quashed by the Court, if the Court is satisfied that matter has been settled between the parties amicably and parties are interested

to restore peace and harmony between them.Â

5.

Having considered submission of learned counsel for the parties and after going through the entire material available on record, I am satisfied that

the matter has been settled between the parties amicably. Therefore, the writ petition deserves to be allowed.Â

6.

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Impugned F.I.R. No.410 of 2017, under Section 420, 406 & 506 of IPC, registered at Police Station Nehru

Colony, District Dehradun, is hereby quashed, so far it relates to the petitioner.

7.

Compounding application is, accordingly, disposed of.Â