AJAY RAJ Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petitioners, by means of present Writ Petition, seek to quash the impugned FIR No. 30 of 2015, dated 07.03.2015, under Sections 147, 149, 336, 452, 504 and 506 of IPC, lodged by respondent no. 3, at Police Station Banbhulpura, Haldwani, District Nainital.

(2.) A first information report was lodged by respondent no. 3 against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 149, 336, 452, 504 and 506 of IPC of IPC. A compounding application being CLMA No. 2865 of 2015 has been filed by the parties to indicate that they have buried their differences and settled their disputes amicably. A joint compromise application is also filed by them along with affidavits of Ajay Raj (petitioner no.1) and Smt. Sheela Devi (respondent no. 3). Smt. Sheela Devi (respondent no. 3) is present in person before this Court, duly identified by her counsel Mr. Lalit Sharma, Advocate. Petitioners are also present in person, duly identified by their counsel Mr. Z. U. Siddiqui, Advocate. Respondent no. 3 Smt. Sheela Devi says that she has no grievance left against the writ petitioners and she is not interested in prosecuting the petitioners, in as much as, the dispute has been settled amicably between the parties with the intervention of some elderly persons of the society. In other words, Smt. Sheela Devi (the person aggrieved) has exonerated the present petitioners.

(3.) WHEREAS some of the offences are compoundable offences within the Scheme of Section 320 of Cr. P.C., the other offences are not. The question is whether the respondent no. 3 should be permitted to compound the offences complained of against the petitioner or not? Perused the contents of the First information report. Learned counsel for the parties 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: