RAJEEV ANAND Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE the aforesaid applications under section 482 Cr.P.C. arise out of the same charge -sheet, therefore, both the cases are being decided by this common judgment for the sake of brevity and convenience. The applicants were summoned to face the trial for the offences punishable under sections 406 IPC read with section 120 -B IPC on the basis of a charge -sheet submitted against them. Aggrieved against the same, present applications under section 482 Cr.P.C. were filed by the accused -applicants.

(2.) COMPOUNDING Applications (CRMA No. 1196/2014 & 1197/2014) are filed before this Court to show that the parties have settled their disputes amicably. Two of the applicants, namely, Ravindra Kumar Chauhan and V.K. Bhaskar Rao and the respondent No. 2 -Rajendra Sharma have filed their affidavits indicating the same. Respondent No. 2 is present in person, duly identified by his Counsel Mr. Lok Pal Singh. He says that since all the dues have been cleared by the accused -applicants, therefore, he does not wish to prosecute the applicants. Respondent No. 2 prayed that he may be permitted to compound the offences against the applicants, the applications under section 482 Cr.P.C. be allowed and the proceedings of the criminal case be quashed. The parties have also filed a copy of the settlement deed in the form of Annexure -1 to the compounding applications. Applicants and respondent No. 2 are the signatories to such settlement deed.

(3.) THE permission can be granted to the respondent No. 2 to compound such offence by the High Court in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C. in view of the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nikhil Merchant v. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, : 2008 (62) ACC 921 (SC) : 2008 (69) AIC 34 and Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another. : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 160