FIR Quashed when the parties amicably settled the dispute: High Court of Uttarakhand.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Writ Petition No. 11020 …..Petitioner Niyamul Haq @ Niyamul State of Uttarakhand and others Mr. S.K. Shandilya learned counsel for the petitioner. Mrs. Mamta Joshi learned Brief Holder for the State. Mr. Sachin Kumar learned counsel for the respondent nos.3 & 4. Dated: 30th July 2021 Hon’ble N.S. Dhanik J. The present criminal writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs: Issue a writ order in the nature of certiorari to quash the FIR dated 31.05.2021 of FIR No. 0614 of 2021 under Sections 147 148 307 & 504 IPC Police Station Manglore District Haridwar contained as annexure no. 1) as much relates to the petitioner. A writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 1 & 2 not to harass and arrest the petitioner in view of the impugned FIR till the collection of credible evidence against the petitioner or till the filing of the report submitted under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. Now parties have compounding application stating therein that they have entered into compromise and amicably settled their dispute and now the respondent no.a 3 & 4 do not have any grievance with the petitioner. In support 2 of compounding application IA No. 1 2021) affidavits have been filed by the petitioner and respondent nos. 3 & 4. Niyamul Haq @ Niyamul) respondent no. 3 complainant and respondent no. 4 injuredare present in the Court today through Video Conferencing duly identified by their respective counsel. They admitted the settlement. application bears signatures thumb impressions of the petitioner and respondent nos. 3 & 4. It has been further stated by the parties that now they have amicably settled their dispute. Therefore learned Counsel for the parties have submitted that the impugned FIR be quashed in terms of the compromise. Learned State Counsel although opposed the compounding application on the ground that Section 307 IPC is non compoundable but admit the fact that the nature of injury is simple in nature and caused by hard and blunt object. Learned Counsel for the accused petitioner contended that all the injuries are simple in nature. Learned Counsel placed reliance on a recent judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan 5 SCC 688 wherein it has been observed as under: “Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be generally treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone. However the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence which if proved would lead to proving the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained whether such injury is inflicted on the vital delicate parts of the body nature of weapons used etc. Medical report in respect of injuries suffered by the victim can generally be the guiding factor. On the basis of this prima facie analysis the High Court can examine as to whether there is a strong possibility of conviction or the chances of conviction are remote and bleak. In the former case it can refuse to accept the settlement and quash the criminal proceedings whereas in the latter case it would be permissible for the High Court to accept the plea compounding the offence based on complete settlement between the parties. At this stage the Court can also be swayed by the fact that the settlement between the parties is going to result in harmony between them which may improve their future relationship.” say non compoundable offences cannot be compounded. But considering the nature of injuries above authority of the Hon’ble Apex Court and also the proposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Nikhil Merchant v. C.B.I. Ors 9 SCC 677 B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana & Anr. reported in 4 SCC 675 and in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Another 10 SCC 303 where there is a genuine compromise and there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being convicted and continuance of the proceedings after the compromise having been arrived at between the parties would be a futile exercise the compromise should be accepted and the impugned FIR should be quashed. 4 Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the legal proposition propounded by the Hon’ble Apex Court compounding application is allowed. Compromise arrived at between the parties is accepted. Impugned FIR dated 31.05.2021arising out of FIR No. 0614 of 2021 under Sections 147 148 307 & 504 IPC Police Station Manglore District Haridwar is quashed in terms of the compromise qua the petitioner only. accordingly. 30.07.2021 

Summary: 
Where there is a genuine compromise and there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being convicted, then FIR should be quashed. A single Judge bench comprising Hon’ble Justice N.S. Dhanik, in the matter of Niyamul Haq @ Niyamul Versus State of Uttarakhand and others (Criminal Writ Petition No. 1107 of 2020), dealt with an issue where the petitioner filed a writ petition seeking relief from this court to quash the FIR and issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 1 &amp; 2 not to harass and arrest the petitioner in view of the impugned FIR till the collection of credible evidence against the petitioner or till the filing of the report submitted under Section 173 of Cr.P.C.
In the present case, parties have filed the joint compounding application stating that they have entered into a compromise and amicably settled their dispute and now respondent no. a 3 &amp; 4 do not have any grievance with the petitioner.
The petitioner contended that all the injuries are simple in nature and stated that Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be generally treated as crimes against society and not against the individual alone. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. Also, it is not needed to say that non-compoundable offences cannot be compounded. But considering the nature of injuries, where there is a genuine compromise and there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being convicted and continuance of the proceedings, after the compromise having been arrived at between the parties, would be a futile exercise, the compromise should be accepted and the impugned FIR should be quashed.
The court relied upon the Petitioner’s contention and agreed in the view that it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of the injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delicate parts of the body, nature of weapons used, etc and on the basis of this prima facie analysis, the High Court can examine as to whether there is a strong possibility of conviction or the chances of conviction are remote and bleak.
Click here for the Judgement
 Where there is a genuine compromise and there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being convicted, then FIR should be quashed. A single Judge bench comprising Hon’ble Justice N.S. Dhanik, in the matter of Niyamul Haq @ Niyamul Versus State of Uttarakhand and others (Criminal Writ Petition No. 1107 of 2020), dealt with an issue where the petitioner filed a writ petition seeking relief from this court to quash the FIR and issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 1 &amp; 2 not to harass and arrest the petitioner in view of the impugned FIR till the collection of credible evidence against the petitioner or till the filing of the report submitted under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. In the present case, parties have filed the joint compounding application stating that they have entered into a compromise and amicably settled their dispute and now respondent no. a 3 &amp; 4 do not have any grievance with the petitioner. The petitioner contended that all the injuries are simple in nature and stated that Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be generally treated as crimes against society and not against the individual alone. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. Also, it is not needed to say that non-compoundable offences cannot be compounded. But considering the nature of injuries, where there is a genuine compromise and there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being convicted and continuance of the proceedings, after the compromise having been arrived at between the parties, would be a futile exercise, the compromise should be accepted and the impugned FIR should be quashed.