Where the petitioner and respondent had amicably settled the dispute and the complainants do not want to prosecute the petitioner further, therefore, the complainants (respondents herein), should be permitted to compound such offences against the applicants. A single Judge bench comprising Hon’ble Justice R.C. Khulbe, in the matter of Narendra Versus State of Uttarakhand & Anr (Compounding Application No. 2 of 2021 In Criminal Writ Petition No. 1189 of 2021), dealt with an issue where the petitioner filed present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by the petitioner to quash the FIR filed under Sections 147, 307, 504 and 506 IPC at Police Station Ranipur District Haridwar.
In the present case, the compounding application had been filed on behalf of the parties with a prayer that the parties have buried their differences and have settled their dispute amicably. Also, it was in the record that opposite party no. 3-Vipin Kumar, the party no. 4 Ravindra and party no. 5 Sonu @ Hartik do not want to prosecute the petitioner and the dispute had been amicably settled between them.
The counsel for the petitioner submitted that injuries sustained by the petitioner were not dangerous to life, hence, no case u/s 307 is made out against the petitioner. As per the medical report, all the injuries were simple in nature. Thereby the court considered that no offence was made out against the petitioner under Section 307 of IPC.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Nikhil Merchant vs. C.B.I. and another, 2008 AIR SCW 7501 and Dimpey Gujral vs Union Territory through Administrator U.T. Chandigarh and others, [2013 (123) AIC 119 (S.C.) has permitted compounding of such type of offences, which are otherwise non-compoundable, within the scheme of Section 320 of Cr.P.C. It was observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court that the inherent power of the Court will not come in the way of compounding of otherwise non-compoundable offences.
The court observed – “Since the complainants have settled the dispute amicably with the petitioner and do not want to prosecute the petitioner further, therefore, the complainants (respondents herein), should be permitted to compound such offences against the applicants.” The present petitioner was thereby quashed on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties and the writ petition was disposed of.
