22 July vs State Of Uttarakhand And Ors on 22 July, 2025

Uttarakhand High Court

22 July vs State Of Uttarakhand And Ors on 22 July, 2025

Author: Pankaj Purohit

Bench: Pankaj Purohit

                                                       2025:UHC:6416
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
         Writ Petition Criminal No. 778 of 2025
                          22 July, 2025
Abdul Gani and Anr.                                  --Petitioners
                               Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Ors.                       --Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
      Mr. Abhishek Joshi, learned counsel for petitioners.
      Mr. Bhaskar Chandra Joshi, learned A.G.A. with Mr.
      Vikas Uniyal, learned Brief Holder for the State of
      Uttarakhand/respondent Nos.1 and 2.
      Ms. Reema Rana, learned counsel for respondent No.3.

Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2. By means of the present writ petition,
petitioners have put to challenge the First Information
Report No.0039 of 2025 dated 08.02.2025, under
Sections 115, 351(2), 351(3), 352 and 74 of the B.N.S.
2023, registered with Police Station Haldwani, District
Nainital, in view of the compromise entered into between
the parties.

3. Along with present criminal writ petition, a
joint compounding application (IA/1/2025) is filed, which
is signed and duly supported by separate affidavits by
petitioners and respondent No.3 (complainant).

4. In the compounding application, it has been
stated by the parties that the parties have reached to the
terms of compromise before Panchayat on 28.06.2025
and a written agreement was made and has been signed
by both the parties. It is thus, prayed that the present
first information report be quashed in terms of the
compromise arrived at between the parties.

5. Learned State Counsel raised a preliminary
objection to the effect that some of the offences sought to
be compounded are non-compoundable.

1

2025:UHC:6416

6. Petitioners-Abdul Gani, Jahur Langda @ Jahur
Hussain and respondent No.3-Hazara Bibi are present
before this Court, duly identified by their respective
counsel. On interaction, respondent No.3 stated that the
petitioner No.1 is real brother in-law of the respondent
No.3 and thus, due to intervention of the respectable
members of the locality, she has settled her dispute with
petitioners amicably and the matter was compromised
between them before Panchayat on 28.06.2025, whereby,
a written agreement was made and was signed by both
the parties, therefore, she does not want to prosecute the
above case against the petitioners in view of the amicable
settlement arrived at between them. She fairly conceded
that she has no objection, if compounding application is
allowed.

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
extraordinary power can quash criminal proceedings or
FIR or complaint, and Section 320 of Cr.P.C. does not
limit or affect the powers under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.

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

2
2025:UHC:6416
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/1/
2025) is hereby allowed. The compromise arrived at
between the parties is accepted. The First Information
Report No.0039 of 2025 dated 08.02.2025, under
Sections 115, 351(2), 351(3), 352 and 74 of the B.N.S.
2023, registered with Police Station Haldwani, District
Nainital, is hereby quashed. Consequently, all the
subsequent proceedings pursuant to the impugned FIR
automatically shall come to an end.

12. Accordingly, the present criminal writ petition
is allowed.

(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
22.07.2025
PN
PREETI
Digitally signed by PREETI NEGI
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=63c75a8c4765581180a58d7478fadbe383
31bac55c78b5f9f0276c16432f6aab,

NEGI
postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=2BA53171893B3C3CB3CCCAE81FA
E064498483A83D84BDB0F9229D5BF08D959AC,
cn=PREETI NEGI
Date: 2025.07.23 10:44:31 +05’30’

3