NITIN GUPTA Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petitioners, by means of present Writ Petition, seek to quash the impugned FIR of Case Crime No. 163 of 2014, under Sections 406 and 506 of IPC, lodged by respondent No. 3, at Police Station Bhagwanpur, District Haridwar. A first information report was lodged by respondent No. 3 against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 506 of IPC. A compounding application being CRMA No. 9848 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 affidavit of Naseem Ahmad (respondent No. 3). Respondent No. 3 is present in person, duly identified by his counsel Mr. Pooran Singh Rawat, Advocate, who says that he is not interested in prosecuting the petitioners, in as much as, the dispute is settled amicably by them. In other words, respondent No. 3 (the person aggrieved) has exonerated the present petitioners.

(2.) WHEREAS offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC is compoundable offence within the Scheme of Section 320 of Cr.P.C., another offence is not. The question is - whether the respondent No. 3 should be permitted to compound the offences under Section 406 and 506 of IPC against the petitioners or not?

(3.) HON 'ble Supreme Court has permitted compounding of such offences in the decision of Nikhil Merchant v. CBI and another, : (2008) 9 SCC 650.