Chaudhary Sameer Sohi vs State of Uttarakhand and Ors.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2. Delay in filing the objection is condoned. Delay Condonation Application (IA/3/2025) made therefor, is allowed. Objection filed by the State is taken on record.

3. By means of the present writ petition, petitioner has put to challenge the FIR No.95 of 2024 dated 15.02.2024, for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 323 and 506 IPC, registered with Police Station Manglore, District Haridwar, in view of the compromise entered into between the parties.

4. Along with present criminal writ petition, a joint compounding application (IA/1/2024) is filed and signed duly supported by separate affidavits by petitioner, respondent Nos.3 and 4.

5. In the compounding application, it has been stated by the parties that there is no grievance of respondent Nos.3 and 4 against the petitioner and they are ready to compound the offence as alleged against the petitioner; it is the case of simple injury as per the First Information Report and Medical Report of alleged injured, 1 therefore the alleged offence may be compound with the permission of this Court; the dispute between the petitioner and respondent Nos.3 & 4 has been settled with the intervention of respected person of the society and the village and now they are living happily without any grudges. It is thus, prayed that the present first information report be quashed terms of compromise arrived at between the parties.

6. Petitioner-Chaudhary Sameer Sohi, respondent No.3-Pravendra Kumar (informant) and respondent No.4-Shaurya (injured) are present before this Court being duly identified by their respective counsel. On interaction, respondent Nos.3 and 4 stated that they do not want to prosecute the above case against the petitioner in view of the amicable settlement arrived at between them with the intervention of respected person of the society and the village. They fairly conceded they have no objection compounding application is allowed.

7. Learned State Counsel raised a preliminary objection to the effect 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 very heinous like 109 of B.N.S. Act i.e. attempt to murder.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jaiveer Malik & Another Vs. The State of Delhi passed in Criminal Appeal Nos.864-866 of 2024, wherein, the proceedings arising out of FIR No.223 of 2016 were set aside, which too were registered under Section 307 of IPC, taking recourse of Yogendra Yadav case as noted below. 2

9. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Yogendra Yadav and Others Vs. State of Jharkhand and Another reported in (2014) 9 SCC 653, in Para 4 it has been observed as under: “4. Now, the question before this Court is whether this Court can compound the offences under Sections 326 and 307 of the IPC which are non-compoundable. Needless to say that offences which are non-compoundable cannot be compounded by the court. Courts draw the power of compounding offences from Section 320 of the Code. The said provision has to be strictly followed (Gian Singh v. State of Punjab) (2012) 10 SCC 303. However, in a given case, the High Court can quash a criminal proceeding in exercise of its power under Section 482 of the Code having regard to the fact that the parties have amicably settled their disputes and the victim has no objection, even though the offences are non-compoundable. In which cases the High Court can exercise its discretion to quash the proceedings will depend on facts and circumstances of each case. Offences which involve moral turpitude, grave offences like rape, murder etc. cannot be effaced by quashing the proceedings because that will have harmful effect on the society. Such offences cannot be said to be restricted to two individuals or two groups. If such offences are quashed, it may send wrong signal to the society. However, when the High Court is convinced that the offences are entirely personal in nature and, therefore, do not affect public peace or tranquility and where it feels that quashing of such proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace and would secure ends of justice, it should not hesitate to quash them. In such cases, the prosecution becomes a prosecution would be waste of time and energy. That will also unsettle the compromise and obstruct restoration of peace.” lame prosecution. Pursuing such a

10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court is of the view that ‘if Court is convinced that the offences are entirely personal in nature and, therefore, do not affect public peace or tranquility and where it feels that quashing of such proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace and would secure ends of justice, it should not hesitate to quash them. In such cases, the prosecution becomes a lame prosecution. Pursuing such a lame prosecution would be waste of time and energy. That will also unsettle the compromise and obstruct restoration of peace. 3

11. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the principle enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Yogendra Yadav (Supra), which is reiterated in Jaiveer Malik (Supra), this Court is of the opinion that since the petitioner is young person being a student of B.A.L.L.B. and the parties have reached to the terms of the compromise, there would remain a 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 justice to permit continuation of the criminal proceedings. Since the answer to the aforesaid points is in affirmative, this Court finds it a fit case to permit the parties to compound the matter.

12. Accordingly, compounding application (IA/1/ 2024) is hereby allowed. The compromise arrived at between the parties is accepted. The First Information Report No. 95 of 2024 dated 15.02.2024, for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 323 and 506 IPC, registered with Police Station Manglore, District Haridwar, is hereby quashed qua the petitioner. Consequently, all the subsequent proceedings pursuant to the impugned FIR automatically shall come to an end qua the petitioner.

13. Present criminal writ petition stands allowed accordingly.

14. Interim order dated 04.12.2024 stands vacated.

15. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of. PN PREETI NEGI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=63c75a8c4765581180a58d7478fadbe38331bac55c78b5f9f0276c 16432f6aab, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=2BA53171893B3C3CB3CCCAE81FAE064498483A83D84BD B0F9229D5BF08D959AC, cn=PREETI NEGI (Pankaj Purohit, J.)

29.04.2025 4