Uttarakhand High Court
29 April vs State Of Uttarakhand And Ors on 29 April, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
2025:UHC:3208 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition Criminal No. 1332 of 2024 29 April, 2025 Chaudhary Sameer Sohi --Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and Ors. --Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Shashi Kant Shandilya, learned counsel for petitioner. Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned A.G.A. with Ms. Sweta Badola Dobhal, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. Vishwaketu Vaidya, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4. Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. Delay in filing the objection is condoned. Delay
Condonation Application (IA/3/2025) made therefor, is
allowed. Objection filed by the State is taken on record.
3. By means of the present writ petition,
petitioner has put to challenge the FIR No.95 of 2024
dated 15.02.2024, for the offences punishable under
Sections 307, 323 and 506 IPC, registered with Police
Station Manglore, District Haridwar, in view of the
compromise entered into between the parties.
4. Along with present criminal writ petition, a
joint compounding application (IA/1/2024) is filed and
signed duly supported by separate affidavits by
petitioner, respondent Nos.3 and 4.
5. In the compounding application, it has been
stated by the parties that there is no grievance of
respondent Nos.3 and 4 against the petitioner and they
are ready to compound the offence as alleged against the
petitioner; it is the case of simple injury as per the First
Information Report and Medical Report of alleged injured,
1
2025:UHC:3208
therefore the alleged offence may be compound with the
permission of this Court; the dispute between the
petitioner and respondent Nos.3 & 4 has been settled
with the intervention of respected person of the society
and the village and now they are living happily without
any grudges. It is thus, prayed that the present first
information report be quashed in terms of the
compromise arrived at between the parties.
6. Petitioner-Chaudhary Sameer Sohi,
respondent No.3-Pravendra Kumar (informant) and
respondent No.4-Shaurya (injured) are present before
this Court being duly identified by their respective
counsel. On interaction, respondent Nos.3 and 4 stated
that they do not want to prosecute the above case
against the petitioner in view of the amicable settlement
arrived at between them with the intervention of
respected person of the society and the village. They
fairly conceded that they have no objection if
compounding application is allowed.
7. Learned State Counsel raised a preliminary
objection to the effect that the offences sought to be
compounded are non-compoundable. He further
objected to the compounding application on the ground
that the offences sought to be compounded are very
heinous like 109 of B.N.S. Act i.e. attempt to murder.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon
a judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of Jaiveer Malik & Another Vs. The State of
Delhi passed in Criminal Appeal Nos.864-866 of
2024, wherein, the proceedings arising out of FIR
No.223 of 2016 were set aside, which too were registered
under Section 307 of IPC, taking recourse of Yogendra
Yadav case as noted below.
2
2025:UHC:3208
9. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Yogendra Yadav and Others Vs. State of Jharkhand
and Another reported in (2014) 9 SCC 653, in Para 4 it
has been observed as under:
“4. Now, the question before this Court is whether this Court
can compound the offences under Sections 326 and 307 of
the IPC which are non-compoundable. Needless to say that
offences which are non-compoundable cannot be
compounded by the court. Courts draw the power of
compounding offences from Section 320 of the Code. The
said provision has to be strictly followed (Gian Singh v.
State of Punjab) (2012) 10 SCC 303. However, in a given
case, the High Court can quash a criminal proceeding in
exercise of its power under Section 482 of the Code having
regard to the fact that the parties have amicably settled
their disputes and the victim has no objection, even though
the offences are non-compoundable. In which cases the
High Court can exercise its discretion to quash the
proceedings will depend on facts and circumstances of each
case. Offences which involve moral turpitude, grave offences
like rape, murder etc. cannot be effaced by quashing the
proceedings because that will have harmful effect on the
society. Such offences cannot be said to be restricted to two
individuals or two groups. If such offences are quashed, it
may send wrong signal to the society. However, when the
High Court is convinced that the offences are entirely
personal in nature and, therefore, do not affect public peace
or tranquility and where it feels that quashing of such
proceedings on account of compromise would bring about
peace and would secure ends of justice, it should not
hesitate to quash them. In such cases, the prosecution
becomes a lame prosecution. Pursuing such a lame
prosecution would be waste of time and energy. That will
also unsettle the compromise and obstruct restoration of
peace.”
10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court is of the view that
‘if Court is convinced that the offences are entirely
personal in nature and, therefore, do not affect public
peace or tranquility and where it feels that quashing of
such proceedings on account of compromise would bring
about peace and would secure ends of justice, it should
not hesitate to quash them. In such cases, the
prosecution becomes a lame prosecution. Pursuing such
a lame prosecution would be waste of time and energy.
That will also unsettle the compromise and obstruct
restoration of peace.
3
2025:UHC:3208
11. Having considered the submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties and the principle
enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Yogendra Yadav (Supra), which is reiterated in Jaiveer
Malik (Supra), this Court is of the opinion that since the
petitioner is young person being a student of B.A.L.L.B.
and the parties have reached to the terms of the
compromise, there would remain a remote or bleak
possibility of conviction in this case. It can also safely be
inferred that it would be unfair or contrary to the interest
of justice to permit continuation of the criminal
proceedings. Since the answer to the aforesaid points is
in affirmative, this Court finds it a fit case to permit the
parties to compound the matter.
12. Accordingly, compounding application (IA/1/
2024) is hereby allowed. The compromise arrived at
between the parties is accepted. The First Information
Report No. 95 of 2024 dated 15.02.2024, for the offences
punishable under Sections 307, 323 and 506 IPC,
registered with Police Station Manglore, District
Haridwar, is hereby quashed qua the petitioner.
Consequently, all the subsequent proceedings pursuant
to the impugned FIR automatically shall come to an end
qua the petitioner.
13. Present criminal writ petition stands allowed
accordingly.
14. Interim order dated 04.12.2024 stands
vacated.
15. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
29.04.2025
PN
PREETI Digitally signed by PREETI NEGI
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF
UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=63c75a8c4765581180a58d7478fadbe38331bac55c78b5f9f0276c
NEGI
16432f6aab, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=2BA53171893B3C3CB3CCCAE81FAE064498483A83D84BD
B0F9229D5BF08D959AC, cn=PREETI NEGI
Date: 2025.04.30 12:08:12 +05’30’
4