Akash Alias Akash Singh Rana v. State of Uttarakhand & Ors.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 s. 108
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 s. 306
- Constitution of India art. 226
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. Insofar as the merits of the petition concerned, the Court in view of the gravity of offence i.e., Section 108 of B.N.S. (Section 306 of IPC) is of the considered opinion that this is not a case where the powers under Article 226 of…
Judgment
State of Uttarakhand and others ………..Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Mahavir Kohli, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B.C. Joshi, A.G.A for the State. Mr. Trilok Chandra, Advocate for respondent nos.3. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. The petitioner is seeking issuance of writ of certiorari to quash the impugned FIR No.0096 of 2025 dated 10.04.2025 lodged by respondent no.3 at Police Station Sitarganj, District Udham SingH Nagar lodged under Section 108 of B.N.S. 2023.
Facts in brief are that respondent no.3 lodged an FIR against the petitioner alleging therein that he has abated suicide of her sister and she has committed suicide in consequence thereof. She alleged that on
08.04.2025 at around 02:00 A.M. she got a call from the petitioner stating that the deceased is not breathing. When she took the deceased to C.H.C. Sitarganj the Doctors declared her dead.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the FIR was lodged due to some misunderstanding between the parties and the petitioner and the deceased were friends and he had no role in her suicide. He further submits that respondent no.3 along with the father of the deceased has submitted an affidavit in the concerned 1 police station and also to the concerned S.S.P. stating therein the FIR was lodged due to some misunderstanding and they do not wish that the prosecution shall continue. He further submits that the petitioner is a law abiding citizen and has no criminal antecedents and the settlement has been arrived at voluntarily without any coercion or undue influence.
Learned counsel for the parties at this stage pressed for the compounding application. It needs to be mentioned that the offence can be compounded only if it is supported by the respective affidavits of accused as well as the victim. In this matter the victim has already passed-away. The compromise has been entered into between the accused and the father of victim-deceased which does not have any sanctity in the eyes of law. The Court does not find any ground to allow such compromise. Accordingly the compounding application (IA No.1 of 2025) is hereby rejected.
Insofar as the merits of the petition concerned, the Court in view of the gravity of offence i.e., Section 108 of B.N.S. (Section 306 of IPC) is of the considered opinion that this is not a case where the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be exercised. The petition lacks merit and the same is dismissed at the threshold itself. SK (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 23.06.2025 2
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 108; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 306; Constitution of India — art. 226.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Uttarakhand High Court, on 10 Apr 2025. The bench was PANKA.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.