Uttarakhand High Court
2 July vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 2 July, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
2025:UHC:5604
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 No. 531 of 2024
02 July, 2025
Mohd. Umar --Applicant
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand and Another --Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant.
Mr. Bhaskar Chandra Joshi, learned A.G.A. for the State
of Uttarakhand/respondent No.1.
Mr. Pradeep Chamyal, learned counsel for respondent
No.2.
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. By means of the present C482 application, the
applicant has put to challenge the impugned FIR
No.0328 of 2023 dated 02.08.2023 registered at P.S.
Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar, Charge Sheet
dated 25.08.2023, cognizance/summoning order dated
18.09.2023 and entire proceedings of Criminal Case
No.1167 of 2023 State of Uttarakhand Vs. Mohd. Umar,
for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 452, 504
and 506 IPC, pending before the learned Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Khatima, District Udham Singh
Nagar.
3. Along with the present C482 application, a
joint compounding application (IA/2/2025) is filed duly
supported by separate affidavits by applicant,
respondent No.2-complainant and the victim.
4. In the compounding application, it has been
stated by the parties that they have settled their dispute
1
2025:UHC:5604
amicably on the intervention of family members of both
sides and the respondent No.2 and the victim do not
want to pursue with the case anymore.
5. Applicant-Mohd. Umar, respondent No.2-
Mohd. Saklain and victim-Smt. Sayama, are present
before this Court, who are duly identified by their
respective counsel. On interaction, respondent No.2
categorically stated that the matter is now amicably
settled by them with the intervention of their family
members, therefore, they want to end the matter with
their free will and without any undue pressure. The
victim stated that since the parties have entered into a
compromise and settled their dispute amicably out of the
Court, she, respondent No.2 and her brother-Mohd. Tarik
do not want to prosecute her husband/applicant in the
aforesaid matter any further.
6. Learned State Counsel raised a preliminary
objection to the effect that some of the offences sought to
be compounded are non-compoundable.
7. So far as compounding of non-compoundable
offence is concerned, the Apex Court has dealt with the
consequence of a compromise in this regard in the case
of B.S. Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana and
another, reported in (2003)4 SCC 675 and has held as
below: –
“If for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR
becomes necessary, Section 320 Cr.P.C. would not be a bar to the
exercise of power of quashing. It is, however, a different matter
depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case whether
to exercise or not such a power.”
8. Thus, the High Court, in exercise of its
inherent power can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or
complaint, and Section 320 of Cr.P.C. does not limit or
affect the powers under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure 1973.
2
2025:UHC:5604
9. Learned counsel for the parties also drew the
attention of this Court towards the ruling of Gian Singh
v. State of Punjab and another, (2013) 1 SCC (Cri)
160, in which Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as below:
“The position that emerges from the above discussion can be
summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a
criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent
jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a
criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of
the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory
limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline
engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to
prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to
quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be
exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute
would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no
category can be prescribed. ………………… In this category of
cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view,
because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the
possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of
criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice
and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the
criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise
with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider
whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to
continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the
criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law
despite settlement and compromise between the victim and
wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is
appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to
the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well
within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.”
10. Since the parties have reached to the terms of
the compromise, this Court is of the firm opinion that
there would remain a remote or bleak possibility of
conviction in this case. It can also safely be inferred that
it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to
permit continuation of the criminal proceedings. Since
the answer to the aforesaid points is in affirmative, this
Court finds it a fit case to permit the parties to
compound the matter.
11. Accordingly, compounding application (IA/2/
2025) is allowed.
12. In view of the above, the present C482
application is allowed in terms of the compromise. The
3
2025:UHC:5604
entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.1167 of 2023
State of Uttarakhand Vs. Mohd. Umar, for the offences
punishable under Sections 323, 452, 504 and 506 IPC,
pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar, is
hereby quashed. Resultantly, the Charge Sheet dated
25.08.2023 and FIR No.0328 of 2023 dated 02.08.2023
registered at P.S. Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar,
stand quashed.
13. Interim order dated 22.03.2024 stands
vacated.
14. Pending application(s), if any, also stands
disposed of.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
02.07.2025
PN
PREETI
Digitally signed by PREETI NEGI
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH
COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=63c75a8c4765581180a58d7478fadbe38331ba
c55c78b5f9f0276c16432f6aab, postalCode=263001,
NEGI
st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=2BA53171893B3C3CB3CCCAE81FAE064
498483A83D84BDB0F9229D5BF08D959AC, cn=PREETI
NEGI
Date: 2025.07.02 16:25:24 +05’30’
4