SHASHIKANT Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicants, by means of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seek to quash the charge -sheet dated 09.02.2011, summoning order dated 23.03.2011, passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bageshwar, as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 61 of 2011, captioned as State vs. Arvind Negi and others, under Sections 352, 380, 504, 427 of IPC and Section 4/10 of the Protection of Trees Act, pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bageshwar.

(2.) A charge -sheet was submitted in the year 2010 against the applicants for the offences punishable under Sections 352, 379, 504, 506 427 of IPC and Section 4/10 of the Protection of Trees Act. A compounding application being CRMA No. 1527 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 affidavits of Shashikant Negi (applicant no.1), Arvind Negi (applicant no.2), Raju Negi (applicant no.3) and Mr. Hari Om Bhakuni (respondent no.2). Respondent No. 2 Mr. Hari Om Bhakuni, is present in person, duly identified by his counsel Mr. Siddharth Bisht, Advocate. Respondent no. 2 (victim) has prayed in his affidavit that he may be permitted to compound the offences alleged against the applicants, inasmuch as, the dispute between the parties has been resolved amicably. All the applicants are also present in person, duly identified by their counsel Ms. Prabha Nathani, Advocate. It is the statement of learned counsel for the parties that the land on which the trees were erected, was a private land of respondent no.2

(3.) WHEREAS some of the offences alleged against the applicants are compoundable offences within the Scheme of Section 320 Cr.P.C., the others are not. The question, which arises for consideration of this Court is - whether the complainant -respondent no. 3 should be permitted to compound the offences alleged against the applicants or not?