Sahaj Mehta vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another

N.S. Dhanik, J

This criminal misc. application has been filed by the applicant to quash the charge-sheet dated 12.05.2021; summoning order dated 01.06.2021 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 2760 of 2021, "State v. Sahaj Mehta", under Sections 307, 325 & 506 IPC, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar.

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. 2 does not has any grievance with the applicant. In support of compounding application, (IA No. 1/2021), affidavits have been filed by the applicant as well as respondent no. 2.

Applicant is in jail and as such the applicant from jail has authorized in writing to Mr. Amit Mehta (father of the applicant) for doing pairvi on his behalf and the said authorization letter is duly attested by the concerned Jailor.

On 01.09.2021, Mr. Amit Mehta (Father of the applicant) and Mr. Arvind Rawat (respondent no. 2/complainant/injured) were present before this Court, duly identified by their respective counsels. They admitted the settlement.

Compounding application bears the signatures/thumb impressions of the applicant and respondent no. 2. 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 entire proceedings be quashed in terms of the compromise.

Learned State Counsel opposed the compounding application by contending that Section 307 is non-compoundable and the alleged injury is head injury which is grievous in nature.

Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that although the alleged injury is grievous in nature but not dangerous to life. He further 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."

Needless to say, non-compoundable offences cannot be compounded. But considering the fact that the alleged injury is not dangerous to life and the 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.

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 entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 2760 of 2021, "State v. Sahaj Mehta", under Sections 307, 325 & 506 IPC, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar are quashed qua the applicant only in terms of the compromise. Inform the court concerned.

Present criminal misc. application stands disposed of accordingly.