Salman vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Ravindra Maithani, J

The instant petition has been filed seeking following reliefs:-

"i. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned F.I.R. dated 17.02.2019 registered as Case Crime No.35 of 2019 under Section 307 I.P.C. P.S. Banbhulpura District Nainital.

ii. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to arrest the petitioner in Case Crime no.35 of 2019 under Section 307 I.P.C. P.S. Banbhulpura District Nainital till the pendency of present petition."

Heard and perused the records.

The petition has been filed on the ground that parties have amicably settled the issues. A joint compromise application has also been filed along with the petition.

In this case, FIR under Section 307 IPC was lodged on 17.02.2019 at 03:16. According to the FIR, on 16.02.2019 at about 09:00 p.m. son of the first informant had gone to attend the marriage ceremony but during dancing the petitioner fired from his illegal pistol, which hit on the thigh of the son of the first informant. The FIR under Section 307 IPC was registered.

Learned State counsel would say that investigation is under process.

In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan and Others 2019 SCC Online SC 320, in para 31(iv) the Hon'ble Supreme Court, inter-alia, laid down the principles for quashing the proceedings under Section 307 IPC, on the basis of amicable settlement. It is, inter-alia, held by the Court as hereunder:-

"iv. Offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act etc. would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal proceedings for the offence under Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act etc. which have a serious impact on the society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code, on the ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst themselves. 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 framing 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/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc. However, such an exercise by the High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and the charge sheet is filed/charge is framed and/or during the trial. Such exercise is not permissible when the matter is still under investigation. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in paragraphs 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in the case of Narinder Singh (supra) should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove;"

(emphasis supplied)

In the instant case, investigation is still pending. In view of the principles of law as laid down in Laxmi Narayan (supra) at this stage, the matter should not be considered for quashing the proceedings on the basis of amicable settlement between the parties, therefore, the compounding application cannot be accepted and deserves to be rejected and rejected accordingly.

It is further argued that during investigation, the injured has not supported the version of the FIR. This may not be a ground for quashing the FIR. These are the factual aspects.

Perusal of the FIR reveals commission of cognizance offence. The truthfulness of the averments has to be tested during investigation or at trial, as the case may be. Therefore, this Court is of the view that writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would further argue that the petitioner is cooperating with the investigating agency he should not be arrested in routine and mechanical manner.

The writ petition is dismissed. However, the Investigating Officer if decides to arrest the petitioner shall follow the law as laid down by the Courts, in this regard as well as the legal provisions and will remind himself that liberty is a precious right which should not be curtailed in a routine manner.