High CourtsSingle Bench

Naveen Chandra vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 10 May 2021 · Citation: (2021) 05 UK CK 0017

HON’BLE JUDGES
Narayan Singh Dhanik, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 760 Of 2021

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

23 paragraphs · 421 words

Narayan Singh Dhanik, J

1.

Present criminal writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:

“(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned FIR No. 0014 dated 12.03.2021, PS Champawat, under

Sections 353, 504 and 427 IPC and be to compound the alleged offence on the basis of compromise arrived between the parties.

(ii) To pass any other suitable writ order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem firt and proper in the facts and circumstances of the

present case. â€​

2.

Now, parties have filed a joint compounding application being IA No. 01 of 2021 stating therein that they have entered into compromise and

amicably settled their disputes and now the complainant/respondent no. 2 does not have any grievance with the petitioner. In support of compounding

application, affidavits have been filed by the petitioner and respondent no. 2 (injured). Petitioner and respondent nos. 2, duly identified by their

respective Counsels, are present through Video Conferencing before the Court today and they have ratified the above facts too. Application bears the

signatures of both the parties. They have further stated that now they have amicably settled their disputes. Therefore, learned Counsel for the parties

have submitted that the impugned FIR be quashed in terms of the compromise.

3.

Learned State Counsel raised formal objection of compounding the offences.

4.

Considering the nature of injuries as well as 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.

5.

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.

6.

Consequently, impugned FIR dated 12.03.2021 registered as FIR No. 0014 of 2021, for the offence punishable under Section 323, 504 and 427 IPC,

registered with PS Champawat, District Champawat is quashed in terms of the compromise. .

7.

Writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.