NORTHERN CARRIERS PVT LTD Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petitioners, by means of present Writ Petition, seek to quash the impugned FIR dated 29.09.2013, in Case Crime No. 352 of 2013, under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 read with Section 120 -B of IPC, Police Station Ranipur, District Haridwar.

(2.) A first information report was lodged against the writ petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 read with Section 120 -B of IPC. Learned counsel for the parties say that the parties have settled their disputes amicably. It is the statement of learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 that there is no grievance left against the writ petitioners, inasmuch as, the petitioners along with respondent no. 2 have buried their differences. Affidavits of Tirlochan Singh (petitioner no.2) and the complainant Raj Kumar Tayal (respondent no.2 herein) have been filed. Respondent no. 2 is present in person, duly identified by his counsel Mr. Ranvir Singh, Advocate, who says that he is not interested in prosecuting the petitioners. He further states that the first information report lodged by him against the petitioners be quashed and set aside. Petitioner No. 2 (Tirlochan Singh) is also present in person duly identified by his counsel Mr. D.S.Mehta, Advocate, who affirms the statement given by the respondent no. 2. Learned counsel for the parties stated that the parties have settled their disputes amicably and the complainant (respondent no.2) is not willing to prosecute the petitioners.

(3.) OFFENCE punishable under Section 420 of IPC is a compoundable offence with the permission of the Court within the Scheme of Section 320 of Cr.P.C. The other offences are non -compoundable offences. The question is whether the respondent no. 2 should be permitted to compound the offences complained of against the petitioners or not?