Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 33 (UTT)

AKHTAR ALI v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2020-01-08

N.S.DHANIK

body2020
JUDGMENT Hon'ble N.S. Dhanik, J. This Criminal Miscellaneous Application, under Section 482 CrPC, along with compounding application, is preferred to quash the chargesheet dated 25.4.2018, summoning order dated 19.6.2018 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 5421 of 2018, State v. Akhtar Ali & Others, under Sections 147, 148, 307, 323, 324 452, 504 and 506 IPC, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar. 2. Consequent upon the FIR lodged by the respondent no. 2 against accused applicants, investigation was made and chargesheet was submitted and thereafter the accused applicants have been summoned to face trial for the aforementioned offences. 3. In the compounding application, duly supported by the affidavits of applicant no. 1 and the complainant/respondent no. 2 as well as the victims, it has been stated that parties have amicably settled their dispute and the complainant and the victim do not want to prosecute the accused applicants. Accused persons, the complainant and the victims, duly identified by their respective Counsel, appeared in person before this Court on 6.12.2019/18.12.2019. They admitted the contents of the compounding application and stated that they have entered into compromise and amicably settled the dispute. 4. Learned State Counsel opposed the compounding application and contended that offences under Section 147, 148, 307, 324 and 452 IPC are non-compoundable. Emphasis of the learned State Counsel is on the offence under Section 307 IPC. 5. Learned Counsel for the accused applicants contended that none of the injuries is dangerous to life and there is no injury of firearm. 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 , 2019 (2), NCC 37. 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." 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. 7. 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. 8. Consequently, the chargesheet dated 25.4.2018, summoning order dated 19.6.2018 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 5421 of 2018, State v. Akhtar Ali & Others, under Sections 147, 148, 307, 323, 324 452, 504 and 506 IPC, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar, are hereby quashed. Present criminal miscellaneous application stands disposed of.