Uttarakhand High Court
6 August vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 6 August, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
2025:UHC:6893
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc Application (u/s 528) No. 1338 of 2025
06 August, 2025
Rakesh Kumar Pal --Applicant
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand and Another --Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant.
Mr. Vipul Painuli, learned A.G.A. for the State of
Uttarakhand/respondent No.1.
Mr. Nikhil Khuswaha, learned counsel for
respondent No.2.
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. By means of the present C528 application, the
applicant has put to challenge the FIR No.199 of 2015
dated 24.07.2015, Charge Sheet dated 29.09.2015
registered with P.S. Kashipur, District Udham Singh
Nagar, cognizance/summoning order dated 29.10.2015
as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case
No.3271 of 2015 State Vs. Rakesh Kumar Pal, for the
offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 IPC
and under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,
pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar.
3. Along with the present C528 application, a
joint compounding application (IA/1/2025) is filed duly
supported by separate affidavits by applicant and
respondent No.2.
1
2025:UHC:6893
4. In the compounding application, it has been
stated by the parties that the disputes between them are
settled and the decree of divorce has been affirmed by a
Division Bench of this Court on the basis of the
settlement arrived at between them on certain terms and
conditions vide order dated 29.08.2024. Now, the
respondent No.2 does not want to pursue with the case
anymore.
5. Applicant-Rakesh Kumar Pal is present before
this Court through V.C. while respondent No.2-Anshu
Singh is present before this Court physically, who are
duly identified by their respective counsel. On interaction,
respondent No.2 categorically stated the dispute is now
amicably settled by them and the decree of divorce has
also been affirmed on certain terms and conditions,
therefore, she wants to end the matter with her free will
and does not want to prosecute the 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
2
2025:UHC:6893
affect the powers under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S.,
2023.
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/1/
2025) is allowed.
3
2025:UHC:6893
12. In view of the above, the present C528
application is allowed in terms of the compromise. The
entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.3271 of 2015
State Vs. Rakesh Kumar Pal, for the offences punishable
under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 IPC and under Section
3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, pending before the
learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur,
District Udham Singh Nagar, is hereby quashed.
Resultantly, FIR No.199 of 2015 dated 24.07.2015 and
Charge Sheet dated 29.09.2015 registered with P.S.
Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, stand quashed.
13. Pending application(s), if any, also stands
disposed of.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
06.08.2025
PN
PREETI
Digitally signed by PREETI NEGI
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=63c75a8c4765581180a58d7478fadbe
38331bac55c78b5f9f0276c16432f6aab,
NEGI
postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=2BA53171893B3C3CB3CCCAE8
1FAE064498483A83D84BDB0F9229D5BF08D9
59AC, cn=PREETI NEGI
Date: 2025.08.06 16:57:52 +05’30’
4
[ad_1]
Source link