Uttarakhand High Court
5 April vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 5 April, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
2025:UHC:2571
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 No. 180 of 2023
05 April, 2025
Sajid and Others --Applicants
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand and Another --Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Prashant Khanna, learned counsel for applicants,
appeared through video conferencing.
Mr. Bhaskar Chandra Joshi and Mr. Vipul Painuli,
learned A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent
No.1.
Mr. Vikrant Bijalwan (through v.c.) and Mr. Himanshu
Joshi, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. By means of the present C482 application, the
applicant has put to challenge the Charge Sheet dated
09.10.2022, summoning order dated 21.12.2022 passed
by learned Additional Judicial Magistrate First,
Dehradun, in Criminal Case No.8606 of 2022 State of
Uttarakhand Vs. Sajid and Others, under Sections 420,
467, 468, 471, 406, 323, 504 and 506 IPC, as well as the
entire proceedings of aforementioned Criminal Case.
3. Along with present criminal writ petition, a
joint compounding application (IA/2/2023) is filed and
signed duly supported by separate affidavits by
applicants and respondent No.2.
4. In the compounding application, it has been
stated by the parties that the parties have reached to the
terms of compromise wherefor a settlement has also
reached between them as the applicants have returned
the money under dispute i.e. Rs.5,05,000/- to the
1
2025:UHC:2571
respondent No.2 through RTGS No.BARBR52022071900
820467 amounting Rs.2,55,000/- and the remaining
payment of Rs.2,50,000/- through RTGS No.BARB
52022071900820497 on 19.07.2022 in her bank
account. It is thus, prayed that the present first
information report be quashed in terms of the
compromise arrived at between the parties.
5. Applicants-Sajid, Javed, Mehboob and Abdul
Azeem are present before this Court, while respondent
No.2-Smt. Noor Parveen was present through V.C. Both
the parties are being duly identified by their respective
counsel. On interaction, respondent No.2 stated that the
applicants and she now have no differences as the
applicants have returned the money under dispute
therefore, she doesn’t want to prosecute the above case
against the applicants in view of the amicable settlement
arrived between them. She fairly conceded that she has
no objection if compounding application is allowed.
6. Learned State Counsel raised a preliminary
objection to the effect that the offences under Sections
467, 468 and 471 IPC 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
2
2025:UHC:2571
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.
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.
3
2025:UHC:2571
11. Accordingly, compounding application (IA/2/
2023) is hereby allowed. The compromise arrived at
between the parties is accepted. The entire proceedings of
Criminal Case No. 8606 of 2022 State of Uttarakhand Vs.
Sajid and Others, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471,
406, 323, 504 and 506 IPC, pending in the Court of
learned Additional Judicial Magistrate First, Dehradun, is
hereby quashed. Resultantly, the Charge Sheet dated
09.10.2022, stands quashed.
12. Present C482 application stands allowed
accordingly.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
05.04.2025
PN
4