C482/467/2022 of IKRAR Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Criminal Misc. Application No.467 of 2022

Ikrar and another ………Applicants

Versus

State of Uttarakhand & others ………Respondents

Mr. Mohd. Safdar, Advocate for all the applicants. Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned AGA for the State. Ms. Reema Rana, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 & 3. Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. By means of the present C-482 application, the applicants have challenged the entire proceedings of Sessions Trial No.231 of 2019, State v. Ikrar and another, under Sections 316, 323 and 504 IPC, P.S. Bhagwanpur, District Haridwar, pending before the First Additional District Judge, Roorkee, District Haridwar.

3. Along with the present C-482 application, compounding application (IA/1/2022) has been filed which is duly supported by separate affidavits of applicants, respondent No.2 and respondent No.3.

4. In the compounding applications, it has been stated by the parties that they have entered into compromise outside the Court with their own free will and without any undue pressure, hence, now respondent Nos.2 & 3 have no grudge against the present applicants and they do not want to prosecute them any further.

5. Applicants, namely, Ikrar & Israr as well as respondent No.2-Jamshed and respondent No.3-Shama Parveen are present before this Court. All the parties are duly identified by their respective advocates. On

interaction, respondent Nos.2 & 3 stated that they do not want to prosecute the above case against the applicants in view of the amicable settlement arrived between them. They fairly conceded that they have no objection if compounding application is allowed.

6. Learned State Counsel raised preliminary objection that the offences sought to be compounded are non-compoundable. He further objected to the compounding application on the ground that the offences sought to be compounded are serious in nature.

7. So far as compounding of non-compoundable offence is concerned, the Apex Court has dealt with the consequence of compromise in this regard in the case of B.S. Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana and another, reported in (2003)4 SCC 675and has held as below: -

“If for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necessary, Section 320 Cr.P.C. would not be bar to the exercise of power ofquashing. It is, however, different matter depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case whether to exercise or not such power.”

8. Thus, the High Court, in exercise of its inherent power can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint, and Section 320 of Cr.P.C. does not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

9. Since the parties have reached to the terms of the compromise, this Court is of the firm opinion that there would be remote or bleak possibility of conviction in this case. It can also safely be inferred that it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to permit continuation of the criminal proceedings after settlement. Since the answer to the aforesaid points is in affirmative, this Court

finds it fit case to permit the parties to compound the matter.

10. Accordingly, compounding application (IA/1/2022) is hereby allowed. The compromise arrived at between the parties is accepted. With the result, the entire proceedings of Sessions Trial No.231 of 2019, State v. Ikrar and another, under Sections 316, 323 and 504 IPC, P.S. Bhagwanpur, District Haridwar, pending before the First Additional District Judge, Roorkee, District Haridwar, are hereby quashed qua the applicants.

11. Present C482 application, as also the applications pending therein, stands disposed of accordingly.

(Pankaj Purohit, J.) 19.05.2025

Ravi