HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Miscellaenous Application No. 2330 of 2023 Ankush Chaudhary and others …………..Applicants Versus State of Uttarakhand and others …………Respondents Presence:- Mr. Sanpreet Singh Ajmani, Advocate for the applicants appeared through video conferencing. Mr. S.C. Dumka, AGA with Ms. Sweta Dobhal, B.H. for the State. Mr. Bhavya Pratap, Advocate for respondent no.2 appeared through video conferencing. Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. By means of the present C482 application, applicants have prayed to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.1265 of 2020, State vs. Ankush Chaudhary and others pending before the court of Addl. CJM, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, for the offences under Sections 307, 323, 504, 506 and 34 IPC. 2. A joint compounding application has been moved on behalf of the parties seeking to compound offences under the aforesaid sections. 3. All the applicants as well as respondent no.2 are present through virtual mode being identified by their respective counsel. 4. In the compounding application, it has been stated by the parties that they have reached to terms of compromise wherefor a settlement has also been arrived at between them. It is thus, prayed that the present criminal proceedings be quashed in terms of the compromise arrived at between them. 5. Learned State Counsel raised a preliminary 1 objection to the effect that the offences sought to be compounded are non-compoundable. He further objected to the compounding application on the ground that the offences sought to be compounded are very heinous like 307 IPC i.e. attempt to murder. 6. Learned counsel for the applicants relied upon a judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jaiveer Malik & Another Vs. The State of Delhi passed in Criminal Appeal Nos.864-866 of 2024, wherein, the proceedings arising out of F.I.R. No.223 of 2016 were set aside, which too were registered under Section 307 of IPC, taking recourse of Yogendra Yadav case as noted below. 7. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Yogendra Yadav and Others Vs. State of Jharkhand and Another reported in (2014) 9 SCC 653, in Para 4 it has been observed as under:- “4. Now, the question before this Court is whether this Court can compound the offences under Sections 326 and 307 of the IPC which are non-compoundable. Needless to say that offences which are non- compoundable cannot be compounded by the court. Courts draw the power of compounding offences from Section 320 of the Code. The said provision has to be strictly followed (Gian Singh v. State of Punjab) (2012) 10 SCC 303. However, in a given case, the High Court can quash a criminal proceeding in exercise of its power under Section 482 of the Code having regard to the fact that the parties have amicably settled their disputes and the victim has no objection, even though the offences are non-compoundable. In which cases the High Court can exercise its discretion to quash the proceedings will depend on facts and circumstances of each case. Offences which involve moral turpitude, grave offences like rape, murder etc. cannot be effaced by quashing the proceedings because that will have harmful effect on the society. Such offences cannot be said to be restricted to two individuals or two groups. If such offences are quashed, it may send wrong signal to the society. However, when the High Court is convinced that the offences are entirely personal in nature and, therefore, do not affect public peace or tranquility and where it feels that quashing of such proceedings on 2 account of compromise would bring about peace and would secure ends of justice, it should not hesitate to quash them. In such cases, the prosecution becomes a lame prosecution. Pursuing such a lame prosecution would be waste of time and energy. That will also unsettle the compromise and obstruct restoration of peace.” 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court was of the view that ‘if Court is convinced that the offences are entirely personal in nature and, therefore, do not affect public peace or tranquility and where it feels that quashing of such proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace and would secure ends of justice, it should not hesitate to quash them. In such cases, the prosecution becomes a lame prosecution. Pursuing such a lame prosecution would be waste of time and energy. That will also unsettle the compromise and obstruct restoration of peace’. 9. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the principle enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Yogendra Yadav (Supra), which is reiterated in Jaiveer Malik (Supra), this Court is of the opinion that since the parties have reached to the terms of the compromise, there would remain a remote or bleak possibility of conviction in this case. It can also safely be inferred that it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to permit continuation of the criminal proceedings. Since the answer to the aforesaid points is in affirmative, this Court finds it a fit case to permit the parties to compound the matter. 10 However, in view of the fact that the investigation has already been carried out which was a lengthy exercise carried out by the police; the case relates to the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC (although 3 no injury case); thus in order to deter the accused from doing any such offence in future, the Court imposes a cost of Rs.15,000/- upon each of three accused persons. The said cost shall be deposited in High Court Advocate Welfare Fund forthwith. 11. Accordingly, Compounding Application (IA No.1 of 2023) is hereby allowed. The compromise arrived at between the parties is accepted. The entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.1265 of 2020, State vs. Ankush Chaudhary and others pending before the court of Addl. CJM, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, for the offences under Sections 307, 323, 504, 506 and 34 IPC, is hereby quashed, qua, the applicants. Consequently, all the subsequent proceedings pursuant to the impugned criminal case automatically shall come to an end 12. Present C482 Application stands allowed accordingly. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 03.07.2025 Ravi 4