Sanoj And Others vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another

N.S. Dhanik, J

This Criminal Miscellaneous Application, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., along with compounding application being CRMA No. 1179 of 2019, is preferred to quash the charge sheet dated 16.10.2017, summoning order dated 20.11.2017 passed by the Judicial Magistrate IInd Roorkee, District Haridwar in league with entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1416 of 2017, "State vs. Sanoj & Others", under Sections 307, 324, 504, 120-B of IPC, registered at P.S. Gangnahar, District Haridwar, pending before the Court of Ist Additional District Judge, Roorkee, District Haridwar.

In the joint compounding application, duly supported by the affidavits of accused applicant no. 1 and the respondent nos. 2 &3, it has been stated that parties have amicably settled their dispute and the victims do not want to prosecute the accused. Accused applicants Sanoj and Ajay as well as the respondents Sanjay Kumar and Arvind Panwar, duly identified by their respective Counsel, were present before this Court on the previous date of listing and they admitted that they have entered into compromise. Compounding application bears the signatures/thumb impressions of all the accused applicants and the respondents.

Learned State Counsel opposed the compounding application and contended that offences under Sections 504 and 506 IPC, for which the accused applicants are facing trial, are non-compoundable. Emphasis of the learned State Counsel is on the offence under Section 307 IPC.

Learned Counsel for the accused applicants contended that all injuries are simple in nature except one, but not dangerous for life. Learned Counsel 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 nature of injuries, 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 and the proceedings should be quashed.

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 charge sheet dated 16.10.2017, summoning order dated 20.11.2017 passed by the Judicial Magistrate IInd Roorkee, District Haridwar in league with entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1416 of 2017, "State vs. Sanoj & Others", under Sections 307, 324, 504, 120-B of IPC, registered at P.S. Gangnahar, District Haridwar, pending before the Court of Ist Additional District Judge, Roorkee, District Haridwar are hereby quashed. Present criminal miscellaneous application stands disposed of accordingly. Inform the Court concerned accordingly.