Allowed

Raghunath Arora v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC5 Jul 2022WPCRL/1122/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court allowed compounding application filed by settled parties to quash an FIR under sections 467 and 468 IPC. It held that though offences are non-compoundable under Section 320 CrPC, the High Court can quash proceedings via Article 226 if the matter is essentially a civil dispute. FIR was quashed.

What did the court decide?

Compounding application allowed; impugned FIR is quashed.

Raghunath Arora Vs State of Uttarakhand — Cheque Dishonour | Uttarakhand HC (2022)

¶1

SL. No.	Date	Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures	COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
			IA No. 2 of 2022 In WPCRL No. 1122 of 2022 Hon’ble Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, J. Mr. Aditya Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. P.C. Petshali, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3. Mr. P.S. Uniyal, learned Brief Holder for the State. Parties are present in person today. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the FIR dated 03.06.2022 being FIR No. 0306 of 2022 under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 504 and 506 of I.P.C lodged by the respondent no. 3 at P.S. Kashipur, District – Udham Singh Nagar. A compounding application has also been filed by both the parties to quash the FIR, as they have settled their dispute amicably. Petitioner no. 2 and respondent no. 3 are present in person today in the Court. Both the parties are agreed to settle the matter outside the Court. Both the parties have also filed a Xerox copy of their Aadhaar Cards and parties are duly identified by their respective learned counsel. Petitioner no. 2 namely Mr. Virat Arora is present. Petitioner no. 1 namely Mr. Raghunath Arora being an aged man and petitioner no. 3 – Mrs. Mani Arora being a married woman residing at D-63 6-10 Deep Nagar Colony, Mehmoorganj Chitturpur Varanasi (U.P.), therefore, could not come to the Court, however, petitioner no. 2 is representingboth of them.

¶2

I peruse the Aadhaar Cards of both the
parties. Parties are duly identified by their
respective counsel. I am satisfied that there a
settlement between the parties.
Learned counsel for the State objects to the
application for compromise in consequence of the
FIR on the ground that Sections 467 and 468 of
IPC are not compoundable. However, in view of
the fact that compounding of an offence under
Section 320 of the Code and quashing of an FIR
on the basis of compromise are two different
things. Though, it is not compoundable under
Section 320 of the Code, but the High Court in
exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India is duly authorized to quash
an FIR or criminal proceedings by issuing a writ
of Certiorari in this case. It is seen that the matter
relating to a civil dispute between the parties has
been given colour of criminal dispute, therefore, it
shall be expedient in the interest of justice to
quash the FIR.
Moreover, these type of cases are not
excepted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
two judgments i.e. Gian Singh v. State of Punjab
(2012) 10 SCC 303 and State of Madhya Pradesh
v.
Laxmi
Narayan
(2019)
5
SCC
688.
Accordingly, the compounding application is
allowed.
The above offences are hereby allowed to be
compounded, and therefore, the impugned FIR as
mentioned above is hereby quashed.
The application (IA No. 2 of 2022) stands
dispose of.
(Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, J.)
05.07.2022
A/-

Raghunath Arora v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raghunath Arora v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Guru Prasad Vs S. Murgesan

Bimla Nand Bahuguna Vs a v Girija Kumar

Jabar Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand

Hazi Sultan Vs State of Uttarakhand

Kuldeep Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand

Sher Ali Alias Sheru Vs State of Uttarakhand