High CourtsSingle Bench

Harman Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 26 August 2021 · Citation: (2021) 08 UK CK 0400

HON’BLE JUDGES
N.S. Dhanik, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 332, 353, 504, 506
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Writ Petition No. 1506 Of 2021
Ask AI about this case

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

22 paragraphs · 369 words

N.S. Dhanik,

1.

The present criminal writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking the following relief:

(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned First Information Report No. 226 of 2021, under Sections 332, 353,

504 & 506 IPC, Police Station ITI, District Udham Singh Nagar.

2.

Now, parties have filed the joint compounding application stating therein that they have entered into compromise and amicably settled their dispute

and now the respondent no. 3 does not have any grievance with the petitioner. In support of compounding application, affidavits have been filed by the

petitioner and respondent no. 3.

3.

In the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner, it is stated that complainant is not a permanent Government Employee and is working

on a contract basis, therefore, he does not came under the definition of Public Servant.

4.

On 24.08.2021, petitioner (Harman Singh) and respondent no. 3/complainant (Jai Prakash) were present in the Court, duly identified by their

respective counsel. They admitted the settlement.

5.

Compounding application bears the signatures/thumb impressions of the petitioner and respondent no. 3. It has been further stated by the parties

that now they have amicably settled their dispute. Therefore, learned Counsel for the parties have submitted that the impugned FIR be quashed in

terms of the compromise.

6.

Learned State Counsel opposed the compounding application on the ground that Section 353 IPC is non-compoundable.

7.

Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Another,

(2012) 10 SCC 303 B.S. Joshi, (2003) 4 SCC 675; Nikhil Merchant, (2008) 9 SCC 677; and Manoj Sharma, (2008) 16 SCC.

8.

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

compounding application is allowed. Compromise arrived at between the parties is accepted. Impugned First Information Report No. 226 of 2021,

under Sections 332, 353, 504 & 506 IPC, Police Station ITI, District Udham Singh Nagar is quashed in terms of the compromise qua the petitioner

only. Inform the court concerned accordingly.

9.

Criminal writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.