AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Lok Pal Singh, J
Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:-
i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing and compound the FIR no.199 of 2019 under Sections 354, 506 of IPC, P.S. Kathgodam, District Nainital on the basis of the compromise and settlement between the parties.
A compounding application being CRMA No.14587 of 2019 has been filed jointly on behalf of the parties with a prayer to compound the offence, inasmuch as, the parties have buried their differences and have settled their dispute amicably and have entered into a compromise. Petitioner Rohan Pratap Singh and respondent no.4-Sneha Sagar as well as respondent no.5-Buddi Sagar have filed their separate affidavits alongwith the compounding application to affirm what is stated in the compounding application.
Petitioner is present in person before the Court, duly identified by his counsel Mr. S.K. Mandal. Complainant Buddi Sagar as well as victim Sneha Sagar is also present in person before the Court, duly identified by their counsel Mr. A.K. Yadav, Advocate. The victim (respondent no.4) as well as complainant (respondent no. 5) has stated that they are no more interested in prosecuting the petitioner, in as much as the dispute between the parties has been resolved amicably. They further stated that they may be permitted to compound the offences alleged against the petitioner.
The offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC is a compoundable within the scheme of Section 320 of Cr.P.C. whereas offence punishable under Section 354 IPC is not. Thus, the only question which is left for consideration of this Court is whether the complainant-respondent no. 5 and the victim - respondent no.4 should be permitted to compound such offence alleged against the petitioner or not?
The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in a catena of judgments that non-compoundable offences can be compounded on the basis of settlements arrived at between private parties and on a compromise between the offender and the victim, and that Section 320 of Cr.P.C. would not be a bar for the purpose of securing the ends of justice. A reference may be made to Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 160, Dimpy Gujral vs Union Territory through Administrator U.T. Chandigarh and others, [2013 (123) AIC 119 (S.C.)] and Narendra Singh and others vs State of Punjab and another, (2014) 6 SCC 466, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has permitted compounding of such type of offences, which are otherwise non-compoundable, within the scheme of Section 320 of Cr.P.C.
In the case at hand, parties have entered into compromise immediately after the alleged commission of offence and the matter is still under investigation. That being the position, it will be a futile exercise to initiate criminal proceedings against the petitioners when the parties have settled their dispute amicably.
In the light of aforesaid, Compounding application is allowed. As a consequence thereof, FIR No.199 of 2019, relating to offences punishable under Sections 354 and 506 of IPC, registered at P.S. Kathgodam, District Nainital, is hereby quashed.
Writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.
No order as to costs.