Uttarakhand High Court
Mohd. Saeed Alias Mohd. Shahid And ... vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 6 April, 2017
Author: V.K. Bist
Bench: V.K. Bist
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Compounding Application CLMA No.3174 of 2017
In
Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 449 of 2017
Mohd. Saeed @ Mohd. Shahid
& Three Others .....Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others ....Respondents
Mr. M.A. Khan, Advocate for the petitioners
Mr. A.S. Gill, Dy. Advocate General assisted by Mr. Milind Raj, Brief Holder
for the State.
Mr. D.N. Sharma, Advocate for respondent nos.3 and 4
Hon'ble V.K. Bist, J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Petitioners have approached this Court, seeking the following reliefs:-
(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned F.I.R.
dated 25.09.2016 registered as FIR No.278 of 2016 u/s 323, 307, 504, 506 of IPC, Police Station Sitarganj, District Udham Singh Nagar on the ground that the dispute has been amicably settled between the parties and the offence has been compounded.
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.2 not to arrest and not to harass the petitioners in connection with FIR No.278 of 2016 u/s 323, 307, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Sitarganj, District Udham Singh Nagar.
23. An FIR was lodged by respondent no.3 against four named accused (the petitioners herein) for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 307, 504, 506 of IPC.
4. A compounding application, being CLMA no. 3174 of 2014, is filed by the parties to indicate that they have buried their differences and have settled their dispute amicably. A joint compromise is filed on behalf of the parties. Respondent no. 3 Habib Ahmad has also filed his separate affidavit to affirm what is stated by him in the compounding application.
5. Complainant/respondent no.3 Habib Ahmad and injured Raja are present in person before the Court, duly identified by their counsel Mr. D.N. Sharma, who stated that they are no more interested in prosecuting the petitioners, who are their close relative. Complainant and injured prayed to compound the offences as well as to quash the F.I.R. lodged by them against the petitioners. Petitioners are also present in person before the Court, duly identified by their counsel Mr. M.A. Khan.
6. In view of the principle of law laid down by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in 2012 (10) SCC 303 as well as in Transfer Petition (Criminal) No. 115 of 2012 (Dimpey Gujral vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh) decided on 06.12.2012, criminal proceedings can be quashed by this Court, if this Court is satisfied that matter has been settled between the 3 parties amicably and parties are interested to restore peace and harmony between them.
7. Having considered submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after going through the entire material available on record, I am satisfied that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and no useful purpose would be served by continuing the prosecution, as such the petition is liable to be allowed.
8. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Impugned F.I.R. dated 25.09.2016 registered as FIR No.278 of 2016, relating to offences punishable under sections 323, 307, 504, 506 of IPC, Police Station Sitarganj, District Udham Singh Nagar, is hereby quashed, on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties. [Compounding application stands disposed of].
(V.K. Bist, J.) 06.04.2017 Rajni