Uttarakhand High Court
2 July vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others on 2 July, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
2025:UHC:5592
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition Criminal No. 694 of 2025
02 July, 2025
Ashish Kumar Rathor & another
--Petitioners
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand & others
--Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Lalit Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Mr. B.C. Joshi, learned AGA for the State.
Mr. D.K. Sharma, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Susheel
Kumar, learned counsel for respondent no.3.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
By means of the present writ petition,
petitioners have put to challenge the First Information
Report No.0020 of 2025 dated 11.01.2025, under
Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338 & 340(2) of BNS, 2023,
registered at Police Station Vikasnagar, District
Dehradun on the ground that an amicable settlement
has been taken between the parties.
2. Along with present criminal writ petition, a
joint compounding application has also been filed by
the parties, which is duly supported by separate
affidavits of the parties.
3. Petitioner no.1 (Ashish Kumar Rathor),
petitioner no.2 (Shubham) and respondent
no.3/informant (Anil Kumar Sharma) are present in
the Court, duly identified by their respective counsel.
1
2025:UHC:5592
4. This Court interacted with the parties
specifically respondent no.3. Respondent no.3 stated
before the Court that he has no grievance against the
petitioners; want to live peacefully and he does not
want to pursue the aforesaid criminal case.
5. In the compounding application, it has been
stated that due to some misunderstanding between the
parties, present FIR has been lodged with regard to the
land for which FIR has been lodged was some other
land of Nirmal Singh Bhaggu and the complainant by
mistake and misconception considered the land
mentioned in the will dated 19.12.2000 as that of
Nirmal Singh Bhaggu, whereas Nirmal Singh Bhaggu
Sardar was never the owner, possessor or occupant of
the said land. It is further stated in the FIR that due to
intervention of respectable members and elders of the
Society, petitioners and respondent no.3 settled the
matter amicably and respondent no.3 does not want to
prosecute the case any further against the petitioners.
6. Per contra, Learned State Counsel raised a
preliminary objection to the effect that the offence
sought to be compounded is non-compoundable.
7. Since the parties have entered into
compromise and are living peacefully, this Court is of
the opinion that it will be a futile exercise to ask the
petitioners to face the criminal prosecution which
would ultimately result into the acquittal.
8. 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
2
2025:UHC:5592
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.”
9. 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 of the Court. But here the Court is
invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution of India which is far wider than
528 BNSS, 2023.
10. In this view of the matter, compounding
application (IA/1/2025) is hereby allowed. The
compromise arrived at between the parties is accepted.
First Information Report No.0020 of 2025 dated
11.01.2025, under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338 &
340(2) of BNS, 2023, registered at Police Station
Vikasnagar, District Dehradun is hereby quashed qua
the petitioners. Consequently, all the subsequent
proceedings pursuant to the impugned FIR
automatically shall come to an end qua the petitioners.
11. Present criminal writ petition stands allowed
accordingly.
12. Pending application, if any, stands disposed
off accordingly.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
02.07.2025
AK
3