Faizaan And Another vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

N.S. Dhanik, J

By way of present application, moved under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. the applicants seek to quash the charge sheet; summoning order dated

10.12.2020 & 25.01.2021 and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 7989 of 2020, “State v. Faiza†and Criminal Case No. 148 of 2021,

“State v. Jishaanâ€​ on the basis of the compromise arrived between the parties.

In support of compounding application (IA No. 1 of 2021), affidavits have been filed by Shri Faizaan (applicant no. 1), Shri Jishaan (applicant no. 2),

Shri Noor Mohammad (respondent no. 3), Shri Lavrej Abbasi (Injured No. 1), Mohd. Aasif Ansari (Injured No. 2), Shri Vaseem Ahmad (Injured No.

3) and by Shri Shoaib (Injured No. 4). It has been submitted that the parties have amicably settled their dispute and the injured do not want to

prosecute the accused applicants. Applicants, respondent no. 3 and injured are present in the court today and they are duly identified by their

respective counsel. They also admitted the facts mentioned in the compounding application.

Learned State Counsel opposed the compounding application and contended that offence under Section 307 of IPC, for which the accused

applicants are facing trial, is non-compoundable and also submitted that the injuries are grievous in nature.

Learned Counsel for the accused applicants contended that the injured received injuries which are not dangerous for life. Learned Counsel placed

reliance on a recent judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan, (2019) 5 SCC 688, wherein it has been

observed as under:

“Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be generally treated as crime

against the society and not against the individual alone. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of

Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of

Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to proving the charge under

Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the

vital/delicate parts of the body, nature of weapons used, etc. Medical report in respect of injuries suffered by the victim can generally be the guiding

factor. On the basis of this prima facie analysis, the High Court can examine as to whether there is a strong possibility of conviction or the chances of

conviction are remote and bleak. In the former case it can refuse to accept the settlement and quash the criminal proceedings whereas in the latter

case it would be permissible for the High Court to accept the plea compounding the offence based on complete settlement between the parties. At this

stage, the Court can also be swayed by the fact that the settlement between the parties is going to result in harmony between them which may

improve their future relationship.â€​

Needless to say, non-compoundable offences cannot be compounded. But considering the nature of injuries, above authority of the Hon’ble

Apex Court and also the proposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Nikhil Merchant v. C.B.I. & Ors, (2008) 9 SCC 677; B.S.

Joshi v. State of Haryana & Anr. reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675, and in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Another, (2012) 10 SCC 303, where

there is a genuine compromise and there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being convicted and continuance of the proceedings, after the

compromise having been arrived at between the parties, would be a futile exercise, the compromise should be accepted and the proceedings should be

quashed.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the legal proposition propounded by the Hon’ble Apex Court, compounding application

is allowed. Compromise arrived at between the parties is accepted.

Consequently, the entire proceedings of the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 7989 of 2020, “State v. Faiza†and Criminal Case No. 148

of 2021, “State v. Jishaan†are hereby quashed, so far it relates to the applicants only. The Present criminal miscellaneous application stands

disposed of accordingly. Inform the Court concerned accordingly.