Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 558 (UTT)

Rohit Grover v. State of Uttarakhand

2019-11-04

N.S.DHANIK

body2019
JUDGMENT : N.S. Dhanik, J. This Criminal Miscellaneous Application, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., along with compounding application being CRMA No. 1874 of 2019, is preferred to quash the impugned summoning order dated 31.03.2017 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Udham Singh Nagar as well as the entire proceedings of Session Trial No. 77 of 2018, "State vs. Rohit Grover and others", under Sections 307, 504 and 506 of IPC, against Rohit Grover and under Section 504 of I.P.C. against Nitin Grover and Yash Narang registered at P.S. Rudrapur, pending before the Court of Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar qua the applicants. 2. In the joint compounding application, duly supported by the affidavits of accused applicants and respondent no. 2, it has been stated that parties have amicably settled their dispute and the injured do not want to prosecute the accused applicants. Accused applicants Rohit Grover and Yash Narang @ Yashpal Narang as well as the complainant Shivam Khurana, 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. Today, Rohit Grover (applicant no. 2) is also present before the Court and duly identified by his counsel. Compounding application bears the signatures/thumb impressions of the accused applicants and the respondent no. 2. 3. Learned State Counsel orally opposed the compounding application and contended that offence under Section 307 of IPC, for which the accused applicants are facing trial, is non-compoundable. Emphasis of the learned State Counsel is on the offence under Section 307 IPC. 4. Learned Counsel for the accused applicants contended that the injured received no injury. 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. 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." 5. Needless to say, non-compoundable offences cannot be compounded. But considering the 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, (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. 6. 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. 7. 6. 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. 7. Consequently, the entire proceedings of Session Trial No. 77 of 2018, "State vs. Rohit Grover and others", under Sections 307, 504 and 506 of IPC, against Rohit Grover and under Section 504 of I.P.C. against Nitin Grover and Yash Narang registered at P.S. Rudrapur, pending before the Court of Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar are hereby quashed, so far it relates to the applicants only. The Present criminal miscellaneous application stands disposed of accordingly. Inform the Court concerned accordingly.