Vinay Gupta vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Narayan Singh Dhanik, J

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 first information report lodged by respondent no.3 on 27.02.2021 registered as FIR No. 0045 of 2021 for the alleged offences punishable under Section 307 IPC, Police Station Dalanwala, District Dehradun (annexure no.1 to the writ petition) on the basis of compromise between the parties.

(ii) Issue any other appropriate order or direction as the Hon'ble Court thinks fit and proper.

(iii) Award the cost to the petitioner."

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.3 & respondent no. 4 do not have any grievance with the petitioner. In support of compounding application, affidavits have been filed by the petitioner's father Munshi Lal Gupta, as the petitioner is in jail and he has sent an authority letter to do pairvi by his father as well as respondent no. 3 / complainant-Ish Mohan Singh and respondent no.4 (injured). Petitioner and respondent nos. 3 & 4, duly identified by their respective Counsels, were present in person before the Court on 07.04.2021 and they had ratified the above facts too. Application bears the signatures/thumb impressions of the father of petitioner and respondent no. 3 & 4. They had 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.

Learned State Counsel opposed the compounding application on the ground that offence under Section 307 IPC is non-compoundable.

Learned Counsel for the accused-applicant contended that the injured received injuries which are simple in nature and 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 3 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, impugned FIR dated 27.02.2021 registered as FIR No. 0045 of 2021, for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC, registered with PS Dalanwala, District Dehradun is quashed in terms of the compromise. .

Writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.