SHAKIB Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. S.K. Mandal, learned counsel for the writ applicant as well as Mr. J.S. Virk, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State.

(2.) By virtue of this writ application, the petitioner has prayed the following prayers:

(3.) A compounding application has been filed by the petitioner as well as respondent No. 3 (victim). Both are present in the Court. However, this Court takes note of the fact that an application for compounding of an offense is different from an application for quashing of the FIR on the basis of a compromise. An offence can be compounded under Sec.  320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, only if case comes within the four corners of the aforesaid provision. However, under Sec.  482 of the same code the High Court have ample jurisdiction on the compromise arrived at between the parties to quash the FIR or set aside the order of cognizance.