PRITAM Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicants seek to quash the charge -sheet, impugned summoning order dated 24.03.2015 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 389 of 2015, captioned as State vs. Pritam and others, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 504 and 506 IPC.

(2.) PRESENT petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the parties to indicate that they have buried their differences and have settled their disputes amicably. The petition is supported by the affidavits of (injured) Virender @ Balender and (applicant) Raju @ Raj Singh. Respondents Virender @ Balender, Mangeram, Km. Chhoti, Km. Reena, Smt. Rukmesh, Aleksiuru Pirki and Bheem are present in person, duly identified by their counsel Mr. Rajendra Singh, Advocate. Applicants Pritam Singh, Ashish, Karambir, Raju @ Raj Singh are also present in person before the court, duly identified by their counsel Ms. Lovely Grover, Advocate. Injured persons say that they are not interested in prosecuting the applicants, inasmuch as, their dispute has been resolved with the intervention of some elderly persons of the society. They further say that they are no more interested in prosecuting the applicants and seek permission of this Court to compound the offences alleged against the applicants.

(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 private respondent should be permitted to compound the offences complained of against the petitioner or not? Learned counsel for the parties drew the attention of this Court towards the judgments rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Dimpey Gujral vs. Union Territory through Administrator U.T. Chandigarh and others, 2013 123 AllIndCas 119 and Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another, 2013 1 SCC(Cri) 160. In Gian Singh's case the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as below: