1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application(C482) No. 753 of 2011 Bhagat Singh, S/o Shri Swarn Singh Pradhan R/o Guljarpur, P.S. Kashipur District Udham Singh Nagar ………..…Petitioner Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand, through Secretary Home Dehradun 2. Devendra Pal Singh S/o Shri Soban Singh R/o Ram Shyam Colony, Ramnagar Road Kashipur, P.S. Kashipur District Udham Singh Nagar 3. Gurupreet Singh, S/o Shri Mohan Singh R/o Veerpur, Laxmi Nagar Budiya Farm P.S. Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar ....……Respondents Mr. Harshpal Sekhon, Advocate, present for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Adhikari, A.G.A., present for the State. Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, Advocate, present for respondent nos. 2 and 3. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard. 2. By means of this petition moved under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.), the petitioner has sought quashing of the proceedings of criminal case no. 1136 of 2011, State vs. Bhagat Singh, relating to offences 2 punishable under section 323, 504, 506 and 308 I.P.C., Police Station Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, Udham Singh Nagar. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3 pleaded that the parties have entered into compromise, and respondent no. 2 and 3 does not want to prosecute the petitioner. A compounding application no. 1000 of 2011, has been moved supported by affidavit of the petitioner Bhagat Singh. 4. The offenses punishable under section 323, 504, 506 IPC, are compoundable under section 320 Cr.P.C.. The respondent no. 2 Devendra Pal Singh and respondent no. 3 Gurupreet Singh are present in court, identified by their counsel Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, Advocate, and they verified the fact that they have compounded the offences with the accused. They are the only two injured persons in the case. As to the offence punishable under section 308 IPC, it is pointed out on behalf of the learned counsel for the parties that the ingredients of said 3 offence are not made out. There is neither any allegation nor any evidence collected as to the fact that if the act which is said to have been committed by the petitioner was done with an intention or knowledge, and that if the act resulted in death, the person would have been guilty of the culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The said plea appears to be supported from the material on record. In the circumstances, this Court has no hesitation in accepting the plea that the ingredients of offence punishable under section 308 IPC, are not made out. 5. Therefore the compounding application no. 1000 of 2011, is allowed so far as it relates to the compoundable offences. The petition under section 482 Cr.P.C., is also allowed. The proceedings of criminal case no. 1136 of 2011, State vs. Bhagat Singh, relating to offences punishable under section 323, 504, 506 and 308 I.P.C., Police Station Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, Udham Singh Nagar, are hereby quashed. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Parul 25.08.2011