Saddam vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

N.S. Dhanik, J

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 FIR dated 29.03.2019 bearing Case Crime No. 36 of 2019 on the

basis of compromise for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC, PS Pulbhatta, District Udham Singh Nagar qua the petitioner.

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. 4 does not have any grievance with the petitioner. In support of compounding application (IA No. 1/2021), affidavits have

been filed by the petitioner and respondent no.4.

Petitioner (Saddam) and respondent no. 4/complainant (Vicky Rawat) are present in the Court today through Video Conferencing, duly identified by

their respective counsel. They admitted the settlement.

Compounding application bears the signatures/thumb impressions of the petitioner and respondent no. 4. 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.

Learned State Counsel orally opposed the compounding application.

Learned counsel for the petitioners 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.

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 FIR dated 29.03.2019 bearing Case Crime No.

36 of 2019 on the basis of compromise for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC, PS Pulbhatta, District Udham Singh Nagar qua the

petitioner is quashed in terms of the compromise qua the petitioner only.

Criminal writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.