[ad_1]
Uttarakhand High Court
Aarif & Another ………Applicants vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 23 April, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Application No.511 of 2024
Aarif & another .........Applicants
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others .........Respondents
Mr. Mohd. Alauddin, Advocate for the applicants.
Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned AGA for the State.
Mr. R.P. Singh, Advocate for the informant.
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)
By means of the present C482 application, the applicants
have put to challenge the charge-sheet dated 20.04.2019, impugned
cognizance order/ as well as summoning order dated 11.07.2019 and
Session Trial No.206 of 2023 (Case Crime No.29 of 2019), under
Sections 323, 325, 307, 504, 506 and 452 of IPC at P.S. Pathri,
District Haridwar pending before the Sessions Judge, Haridwar,
District Haridwar.
2. Compounding Application (IA No.1 of 2024) has been
filed by the parties in the present C482 application stating therein that
the matter has now been amicably settled between the parties and the
second party does not want to proceed further.
3. Today, all the applicants and respondent nos.2 to 4 are
present, physically, before this Court. They are duly identified by their
respective Advocates.
4. On interaction with the parties, it was found that they do
not want to prolong the matter any further and want to settle their
disputes amicably.
5. Objection was called from the State and it is objected by
the State that it’s a case of heinous offences allegedly committed by
the applicants, therefore, the same should not have been compounded.
Further it is submitted that Sections 307 and 452 of IPC are non
compoundable.
1
6. Learned counsel for the applicant pressed in service the
judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jaiveer
Malik & another Vs. The State of Delhi passed in Criminal Appeal
Nos.864-866/2024, wherein the proceedings arising out of F.I.R.
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.
7. 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 its para no.4 has stated as hereunder:-
“4. Now, the question before this Court is whether this
Court can compound the offences under Sections 326 and 307 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 [Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10
SCC 303 : (2012) 4 SCC (Civ) 1188 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 160 :
(2012) 2 SCC (L&S) 988] ). 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 tranquillity 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.”
8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court is of the view that “if the
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
2
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.”
9. Having considered the submission made by learned
counsel for the parties 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 the
proceedings can be quashed by permitting parties to compound the
offence. In the opinion of this Court no useful purpose would be
achieved, if the parties are directed to join the proceedings in the trial
court, which ultimately would result into acquittal and the entire
proceedings would result into a futile exercise.
10. Accordingly, compounding application is allowed. The
offences between the parties are permitted to be compounded. As a
result, the proceedings of the charge-sheet dated 20.04.2019,
impugned cognizance order/ as well as summoning order dated
11.07.2019 and Session Trial No.206 of 2023 (Case Crime No.29 of
2019), under Sections 323, 325, 307, 504, 506 and 452 of IPC at P.S.
Pathri, District Haridwar pending before the Sessions Judge,
Haridwar, District Haridwar, shall also stand quashed.
11. C482 application stands disposed-off in the aforesaid
terms.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
23.04.2025
Ravi
3
[ad_2]
Source link