AMIT VERMA Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners, by means of present Criminal Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seek to quash the impugned F.I.R. No. 58/2014, under Sections 323, 498A, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar. The said FIR was lodged by respondent no. 3.

(2.) COMPOUNDING Application (CRMA No. 10150 of 2014) is filed before this Court to show that petitioner no. 1 -Amit Verma and respondent no. 3 -Neetu Verma have settled their disputes amicably. Petitioner no. 1 is the husband of respondent no. 3. The compounding application is supported by a settlement deed dated 16.07.2014 filed in the court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Ghaziabad. Victim -respondent no. 3 is present in person before this Court duly identified by her counsel Mr. Suhail Ahmad Siddiqui. The petitioner no. 1 is also present in person before this Court, duly identified by his counsel Mr. H.S. Dhillon. The victim submitted before this Court that she does not wish to prosecute the petitioner no. 1 (Amit Verma), who happens to be her husband, in as much as, they have settled their dispute amicably with the intervention of elderly members of victim's family. Respondent no. 3 states that she is living peacefully with her husband. She prayed that she may be permitted to compound the offences alleged against the petitioners, the criminal writ petition be allowed and the proceedings of the FIR be quashed.

(3.) WHEREAS the some of the offences are compoundable offences within the scheme of Section 320 Cr.P.C., the other offences are non -compoundable offences. The question is -whether the victim should be permitted to compound such offences against the petitioner no. 1 or not?