Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 305 (UTT)

VAKEEL v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2017-06-02

LOK PAL SINGH

body2017
JUDGMENT Hon'ble Lok Pal Singh, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Brief facts, of the case, are that respondent no. 3 has lodged the FIR against the petitioners with the allegation that on 11.05.2017, at about 5:00 PM, when she was going with her son Vikas outside the village, at Ravidas Temple, the petitioners started hurling abuses on the complainant and also used derogatory words. They also committed MARPEET with the complainant and her son. 3. Present petition has been filed by the petitioners for quashing of the FIR dated 11.05.2017, registered as Case Crime No. 153 of 2017, relating to offences punishable under section 323, 354, 504 and 506 IPC and under section 3(1)(r)(s)(w)(ii) of SC/ST Act, at Police Station Kotwali Roorkee, District Haridwar. 4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that no specific role has been assigned to the petitioners in the FIR and as per the medical report, the injuries are simple in nature. It is further submitted that the parties have settled their dispute amicably, which is purely private in nature. Learned counsel for the petitioners, and learned counsel for respondent no. 3/complainant stated that parties have entered into compromise, and respondent no. 3/complainant does not want to prosecute the petitioners. 5. In some of the High Courts FIR could be challenged under the provisions of 482 Cr.P.C. but in the High Court of Uttarakhand, petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the FIR is not maintainable and the only remedy available to the aggrieved persons to challenge the FIR by way of filing writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India. Mr. P.S. Bohra, Dy. Advocate General for the State submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable for quashing of the FIR. It would mean that the petitioners would be left remedy less. It is not the intention of the legislature to left the persons remedy less. In my view, writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India is maintainable. My view is fortified with the dictum of Hon'ble Supreme Court that reported in Manoj Sharma vs. State and others, reported in (2008) 16 SCC 1 where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that dispute which is of private in nature and is compoundable, FIR can be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or under Article 226 of constitution of India. My view is fortified with the dictum of Hon'ble Supreme Court that reported in Manoj Sharma vs. State and others, reported in (2008) 16 SCC 1 where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that dispute which is of private in nature and is compoundable, FIR can be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or under Article 226 of constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gold Quest International Pvt. Ltd Vs. the State of Tamilnadu and others. The relevant para is reproduced below:- “8. In view of he principle of laid down by this court in the aforesaid cases, we are of the view in the disputes which substantially matrimonial in nature, or the civil property disputes with criminal facets, if the parties have entered into settlement, and it has become clear that there are no chances of conviction there is no illegality in quashing the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C, read with Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, the same would not apply where the nature of offence is very serious like rape, murder, robbery, dacoity, cases under Prevention of Corruption Act, cases under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and other similar kind of offences in which punishment of life imprisonment or death can be awarded. After considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the view that learned Single judge did not commit any error of law in quashing the FIR after not only the complainant and the appellant settled their money dispute but also the other alleged sufferers entered into an agreement with the appellant, and as, they too settled their claims". 6. In the present case, though the FIR has been lodged under sections 323, 354, 504 and 506 IPC which are compoundable and one punishable under section 3(1) (r), (s), (w) (ii) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes Act which is not compoundable. After perusal of the FIR, this Court is of the view that the dispute between the parties is purely private in nature. After perusal of the FIR, this Court is of the view that the dispute between the parties is purely private in nature. Since, parties have arrived to the compromise and offences punishable under sections 323, 354, 504 and 506 IPC are compoundable, so far as offence under section Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes Act is concerned, the dispute is of private nature, and the Court is of the view that offence under section Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes Act is not made out from the contents of the FIR; neither the complainant has contended that accused persons/writ petitioners belongs to General category nor in public domain they stated any derogatory words in regard to the complainant. Thus, prima facie, offence under section Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes Act is not attracted. 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, and in view of the compromise filed by the petitioner and respondent no. 3, I am of the considered opinion that it is a fit case for quashing the FIR. 8. The writ petition is allowed. FIR dated 11.05.2017, registered as Case Crime No. 153 of 2017, relating to offences punishable under section 323, 354, 504 and 506 IPC and under section 3(1) R, S, W (ii) of SC/ST Act, at Police Station Kotwali Roorkee, District Haridwar, is quashed (Miscellaneous application no. 5974 of 2017, stands disposed of). 9. No order as to costs.