NAVAL SINGH DASILA Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petitioners, by means of present Writ Petition, seek to quash the impugned FIR No. 03 of 2014, under Sections 323, 504, 380 and 457 of IPC, dated 26.06.2014, lodged by respondent No. 3, at Police Station Patwari Circle Danya, District Almora. A first information report was lodged by respondent No. 3 against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 380 and 457 of IPC. A compounding application being CRMA No. 1283 of 2014 has been filed by the parties, to indicate that they have buried their differences and have settled their disputes amicably. The compounding application is supported by the affidavits of Naval Singh (petitioner No. 1) and Madan Singh (respondent No. 3) & Baguli Devi (respondent No. 4). Whereas Madan Singh is the informant of the case, Baguli Devi is the victim. Baguli Devi and Madan Singh are present in person, duly identified by their counsel Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, All the petitioners are also present in person, duly identified by their counsel Mr. Yogesh Pacholia. Respondents No. 4 (Baguli Devi) stated that the dispute with the petitioners has been resolved with the intervention of a few elderly persons of the locality. Baguli Devi seeks permission of this Court to compound the offence against the petitioners. She stated that she is not interested in prosecuting the petitioners. In other words, respondent No. 4 (the person aggrieved) has exonerated the present applicants.

(2.) WHEREAS offences punishable under Section 504 and 323 of IPC are compoundable offences within the Scheme of Section 320 of Cr.P.C., the other offences are not. The question is - whether the petitioner No. 4 (Baguli Devi) should be permitted to compound the offences complained of against the petitioners or not?

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the parties drew the attention of this Court towards the ruling of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another, : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 160, in which Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as below: