MUSTAKEEM ALI Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHARGE -sheet was submitted against the present applicant Mustakeem, for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 325, 307 and 506 of IPC. Cognizance was taken on the said charge -sheet. Accused -applicant was summoned to face the trial. Aggrieved against the same, present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was filed.

(2.) A compounding application no. 721 of 2014 has been filed by the parties to indicate that they have buried their differences and have settled their disputes amicably. They prayed for compounding of offences complained of against the accused -applicants. A joint compromise application is also filed by the parties to affirm the same. Applicant Mustakeem is present in person, duly identified by his counsel Mr. M.A. Khan, Advocate. Applicant Mustakeem and Mrs. Sahista (respondent no. 3) have filed their affidavits. It was respondent no. 2, who lodged the first information report against the applicant. Respondent no. 3 is the sister of respondent no. 2. Respondent no. 2 is present in person duly identified by his counsel Mr. Manish Arora, Advocate, who says that the parties have settled their disputes amicably and have entered into compromise. Respondent no. 3 is not interested in prosecuting the applicant now. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 prayed that she be granted permission to compound the offences alleged against the applicant. Learned counsel for the private respondents also stated that he has no objection if the proceedings pending against the applicant are quashed.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner 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: