TARUN SHAROTRI Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed at the instance of the petitioner-accused, for the quashing of F.I.R No. 49 of 2014 of 05.04.2014 wherein the petitioner herein is alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC registered at Police Station Shahpur, District Kangra, H.P. and also for quashing of consequent proceedings initiated in pursuance thereto and pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dharamshala, H.P. in Criminal Case No. 90-II/2014 titled as State of H.P. v. Tarun Sharotri.

(2.) During the pendency of this case before this Court both the victim and the complainant have recorded their statements on oath duly reduced into writing and respectively thumb marked and signatured by them wherein they have divulged qua the arriving of a settlement/compromise, comprised in Annexure A-3, interse the victim and the petitioner herein, who are neighbourers. The compromise interse them stands driven by the prime factum of aborting further estrangement in their relations besides for promoting goodwill and healthy neighbourly relations interse them.

(3.) Further more, even though the offence under Section 279 of the IPC constituted in the FIR may not be compoundable, hence, obviously its being settled through a deed of compromise may also not be permissible. However, in the face of a verdict of the Hon?ble Apex Court in a judgment reported in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another, (2012) 10 SCC 303, the relevant paragraph whereof is extracted hereinafter mandating that where the victim of the offence and the accused come to record a settlement/strike a compromise even qua offences which are not compoundable, hence would rather not pave way for the success of the complaint/prosecution rather the prosecution of the offender for his having committed the alleged non-compoundable offences, would be an exercise in futility, is a preponderant and preeminent factor to be borne in mind by this Court while exercising the plenary jurisdiction vested in it under Section 482 Cr.P.C.