Allowed

Sher Ali Alias Sheru v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC5 Jul 2022WPCRL/1182/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a compounding application filed by settled parties, holding that the High Court can quash an FIR under Article 226 of the Constitution even for non-compoundable offences. The petition was disposed of and the FIR quashed.

What did the court decide?

The compounding application (IA No. 1 of 2022) allowed; offences compounded; impugned FIR quashed; writ petition disposed of.

Sher Ali Alias Sheru Vs State of Uttarakhand — Quashing and FIR | 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. 1 of 2022 In WPCRL No. 1182 of 2022 Hon’ble Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, J. Mr. Vaibhav Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. P.S. Uniyal, learned Brief Holder for the State/respondent no. 1 to 3. Mr. Manvendra Singh, learned counsel for the informant/respondent no. 4. Parties are present in person today. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the FIR dated 18.04.2022 being FIR No. 0319 of 2022 under Sections 323, 429, 452, 504 and 506 of I.P.C and Sections 3 and 11 of Cattle Trespass Act, 1871 lodged by the respondent no. 4 at P.S. Laksar, District – Haridwar. A compounding application has also been filed by both the parties to quash the FIR, as they have settled their dispute amicably. Petitioner and respondent no. 4 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. I peruse the Aadhaar Cards of both the parties. 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 Section 452 of IPC is not compoundable. However, in view of the fact that compoundingof an offence under Section 320 of

¶2

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.
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 (IA
No. 1 of 2022) is allowed.
The above offences are hereby allowed to be
compounded, and therefore, the impugned FIR as
mentioned above is hereby quashed.
The writ petition stands disposed of.
(Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, J.)
05.07.2022
A/-

Sher Ali Alias Sheru v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sher Ali Alias Sheru 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

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

Raghunath Arora Vs State of Uttarakhand