HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No.511 of 2024 Aarif & another ………Applicants Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ………Respondents Mr. Mohd. Alauddin, Advocate for the applicants. Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned AGA for the State. Mr. R.P. Singh, Advocate for the informant. Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral) By means of the present C482 application, the applicants have put to challenge the charge-sheet dated 20.04.2019, impugned cognizance order/ as well as summoning order dated 11.07.2019 and Session Trial No.206 of 2023 (Case Crime No.29 of 2019), under Sections 323, 325, 307, 504, 506 and 452 of IPC at P.S. Pathri, District Haridwar pending before the Sessions Judge, Haridwar, District Haridwar. 2. Compounding Application (IA No.1 of 2024) has been filed by the parties in the present C482 application stating therein that the matter has now been amicably settled between the parties and the second party does not want to proceed further. 3. Today, all the applicants and respondent nos.2 to 4 are present, physically, before this Court. They are duly identified by their respective Advocates. 4. On interaction with the parties, it was found that they do not want to prolong the matter any further and want to settle their disputes amicably. 5. Objection was called from the State and it is objected by the State that it’s a case of heinous offences allegedly committed by the applicants, therefore, the same should not have been compounded. Further it is submitted that Sections 307 and 452 of IPC are non compoundable. 1 6. Learned counsel for the applicant pressed in service the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jaiveer Malik & another Vs. The State of Delhi passed in Criminal Appeal Nos.864-866/2024, 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 its para no.4 has stated as hereunder:- “4. Now, the question before this Court is whether this Court can compound the offences under Sections 326 and 307 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 [Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303 : (2012) 4 SCC (Civ) 1188 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 160 : (2012) 2 SCC (L&S) 988] ). 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 tranquillity 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.” 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court is of the view that “if the 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 2 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 submission made by learned counsel for the parties 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 the proceedings can be quashed by permitting parties to compound the offence. In the opinion of this Court no useful purpose would be achieved, if the parties are directed to join the proceedings in the trial court, which ultimately would result into acquittal and the entire proceedings would result into a futile exercise. 10. Accordingly, compounding application is allowed. The offences between the parties are permitted to be compounded. As a result, the proceedings of the charge-sheet dated 20.04.2019, impugned cognizance order/ as well as summoning order dated 11.07.2019 and Session Trial No.206 of 2023 (Case Crime No.29 of 2019), under Sections 323, 325, 307, 504, 506 and 452 of IPC at P.S. Pathri, District Haridwar pending before the Sessions Judge, Haridwar, District Haridwar, shall also stand quashed. 11. C482 application stands disposed-off in the aforesaid terms. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 23.04.2025 Ravi 3