Narendra vs State Of Uttarakhand & Anr

R.C. Khulbe, J

Present writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by the petitioner to quash the FIR dated 04.01.2019 registered as FIR No.

004 of 2019, under Sections 147, 307, 504 and 506 IPC at Police Station Ranipur District Haridwar

The above numbered compounding application has been filed on behalf of the parties with a prayer that the parties have buried their differences and

have settled their dispute amicably. The compromise is on the record, duly notarized by the Notary (photocopy enclosed), wherein it has clearly

mentioned that opposite party no. 3-Vipin Kumar, party no. 4 Ravindra and party no. 5 Sonu @ Hartik do not want to prosecute the petitioner and the

dispute has been amicably settled between them.

It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the injuries sustained by the petitioner were not dangerous to life, hence, no case u/s

307 is made out against the petitioner.

I have also gone through the medical report, which is on record. As per the medical report all the injuries are simple in nature. Considering the

submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and after going through the medical report, in my considered view, no offence under Section 307 of

IPC, is made out against the petitioner.

Offences punishable under Sections 504 and 506 IPC are compoundable offences within the scheme of Section 320 Cr.P.C. whereas offence

punishable under Section 147 IPC is non-compoundable.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Nikhil Merchant vs. C.B.I. and another, 2008 AIR SCW 7501 and Dimpey Gujral vs Union

Territory through Administrator U.T. Chandigarh and others, [2013 (123) AIC 119 (S.C.) has permitted compounding of such type of offences,

which are otherwise non-compoundable, within the scheme of Section 320 of Cr.P.C. It was observed by Hon'ble Apex Court that the inherent power

of the Court will not come in the way of compounding of otherwise non-compoundable offences. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Gian Singh vs. State of

Punjab and another (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 160, has observed, in the context of such cases, as under:

“The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal

proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for

compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be

exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of

any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim

have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before

exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental

depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim’s family and the

offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise

between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences

committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving

such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes

of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the

offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature

and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view,

because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal

case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case

despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be

unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would

tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends

of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court

shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.â€​

Since, the complainants have settled the dispute amicably with the petitioner and does not want to prosecute the petitioner further, therefore, the

complainants (respondents herein), should be permitted to compound such offences against the applicants.

In view of the above, compromise application is allowed. As a consequence of the same, FIR dated 04.01.2019 registered as FIR No. 004 of 2019,

under Sections 147, 307, 504 and 506 IPC at Police Station Ranipur District Haridwar qua the present petitioner is hereby quashed on the basis of

compromise arrived at between the parties.

The present criminal writ petition is accordingly stands disposed of.

Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.