C482/2247/2019 of NAEEM Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Compounding Application (CRMA 3149/2019) In

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION No. 2247/2019 (Under Section 482 of the CrPC)

Naeem

…….Applicant

Versus

State of Uttarakhand & Another ……Respondents

Mr. Mohd. Safdar, Advocate, for the applicant.

Ms. Farida Siddiqui, Brief Holder, for the State.

Mr. Matloob Rawat, Advocate, for the complainant/victim.

November 19, 2019

Hon’ble Narayan Singh Dhanik. (Oral)

Present criminal miscellaneous application, along with compounding application, under Section 482 CrPC has been filed for quashing the chargesheet dated 12.1.2014, summoning order dated 1.2.2019 and the entire proceedings of S.T. No. 102 of 2014, State v. Naeem, under Sections 363, 366A IPC pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar.

Compounding application bears the signature of complainant, victim and the applicant and is also supported by their respective affidavits. Accused applicant, victim and the complainant, duly identified by their respective Counsel, were present in person before this Court on 16.10.2019. They ratified that they have entered into compromise and amicably settled their dispute and the complainant/victim do not want to prosecute the applicant.

Reliance has been placed on the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered 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 inGian Singh v. State of Punjab & Another, (2012) 10 SCC 303.

State has filed objection stating that offences under Sections 363, 366A IPC are non-compoundable.

Needless to say that non-compoundable offences cannot be compounded. However, if there is genuine compromise between the parties and the complainant does not want to prosecute the accused persons, no useful purpose would be served if the proceedings are allowed to continue as the same would ultimately result in the acquittal of the accused.

Therefore, keeping in view the legal proposition of law propounded by the Hon’ble Apex Court and the compromise arrived at between the parties, this Court is of the view that continuance of the proceedings, after the compromise having been arrived at between the parties, would be futile exercise.

Hence, the compromise entered into between the parties is accepted. Compounding application is allowed. Consequently, the impugned chargesheet dated 12.1.2014, summoning order dated 1.2.2019 and the entire proceedings of S.T. No. 102 of 2014, State v. Naeem, under Sections 363, 366A IPC pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar, are hereby quashed. Present criminal miscellaneous application stands disposed of accordingly.

(Narayan Singh Dhanik, J.)