IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION (C-482) No. 762 of 2011 1. Veer Singh S/o Sri Chandan Singh 2. Tarsem Singh S/o Sri Veer Singh 3. Harbhajan Singh S/o Sri Veer Singh 4. Preetam Singh S/o Sri Veer Singh All are R/o Village Narsinghpur Erada P.S.Ramnagar, District Naintal. ……………….Petitioners Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand through its Secretary Home, Dehradun, Government of Uttarakhand 2. Dalvinder Singh S/o Sri Mohan Singh 3. Mohan Singh S/o Sri Chandan Singh 4. Chajju Singh S/o Sri Chandan Singh 5. Jasvinder Singh S/o Sri Mohan Singh 6. Surjeet Singh S/o Sri Chajju Singh All are R/o Village Dharampur Aulia, P.S. Ramnagar, District Nainital. ………….....Respondents Shri, S.S.Chauhan, Advocate, present for the petitioners Shri B.S.Parihar, Brief Holder, present for the State Shri H.S.Dhillon Advocate, present for respondent no. 2 to 6 2 Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard. (2) By means of this petition, moved under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioners have sought quashing of the proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 09 of 2006, State vs. Veer Singh and others, relating to offences punishable under section 323, 504, 506 and 308 I.P.C., pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge/Ist Fast Track Court, Nainital. (3) Learned counsel for the petitioners, and learned counsel for the respondent no.2 to 6 submitted that the incident in question relates to MAARPEET between the members of two families who are closely related to each other. There are cross versions of the incident, and cross cases registered. Both the cases are pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge/Ist Fast Track Court, Nainital. Since, the parties are closely related they have entered into compromise, and the respondent no.2 to 6 do not want to prosecute the petitioners. A copy of 3 compromise has been filed as Annexure-4 to the petition. Respondent no.2 Dalvinder Singh, respondent no.3 Mohan Singh, respondent no.4 Chajju Singh, respondent no.5 Jasvinder Singh and respondent no.6 Surjeet Singh are present in court identified by their counsel, and verified the fact that they they have entered into compromise, with the petitioners, and they do not want to prosecute them. It is further submitted by them that in the cross cases also petitioners have entered into compromise, and they too have agreed not to prosecute the respondent no.2 to 6. (4) The offences punishable under section 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., are compoundable under section 320 of Cr.P.C. Only offence which is non compoundable is 308 of Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the parties state that from the nature of the injuries, it is evident that neither there was any intention, nor knowledge that the MAARPEET could cause death of anyone of the injured, to constitute culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Even if the prosecution story alleged against the petitioners is taken to be true, one of 4 the essential ingredients of 308 of I.P.C., i.e. that the act was done with intention or knowledge that if it caused death the prosecution could be guilty culpable homicide not amounting to murder, is missing. (5) In the above circumstances, since the compoundable offences are already compounded between the parties, and ingredients of the non compoundable offence are not complete, this petition deserves to be allowed. (6) The petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C., is allowed. The proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 09 of 2006, State vs. Veer Singh and others, relating to offences punishable under section 323, 504, 506 and 308 I.P.C., pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge/Ist Fast Track Court, Nainital, against the petitioners are hereby quashed. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt.24.08.2011 N.P 5