[ad_1]
Uttarakhand High Court
6 July vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 16 July, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
2025:UHC:6178
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 No. 324 of 2024
16 July, 2025
Prem Singh Bisht and Another --Applicants
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Another --Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Amit Kapri, learned counsel for the applicants.
Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned A.G.A. with Ms. Sweta Badola
Dobhal, learned Brief Holder for State of Uttarakhand/
respondent No.1.
Mr. Pawan Sanwal, 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
applicants have put to challenge the FIR No.01 of 2021,
Charge Sheet dated 30.07.2021 registered with P.S.
Pangala, District Pithoragarh as well as the entire
proceedings of Criminal Case No.52 of 2021 (Sessions
Trial No.15 of 2023) State Vs. Narendra Singh Bisht and
Another, for the offences punishable under Sections 318,
201 and 120-B IPC, pending before the learned Sessions
Judge, Pithoragarh.
3. Along with the present C482 application, a
joint compounding application (IA/1/2024) is filed duly
supported by separate affidavits by applicants and
respondent No.2.
4. In the compounding application, it has been
stated by the parties that they have settled their dispute
amicably and the respondent No.2 does not want to
pursue with the case anymore.
1
2025:UHC:6178
5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits
that applicant No.1 is maternal uncle and applicant No.2
is father of the co-accused Manoj Singh Bisht and a
Coordinate Bench of this Court had already compounded
the matter between the co-accused-Manoj Singh Bisht
and respondent No.2-Km. Sonam by quashing the entire
proceedings of Special Sessions Trial No.13 of 2021 State
Vs. Manoj Bisht and Another, for the offences punishable
under Sections 366, 376, 313, 328 of IPC and under
Section 3(i)XII of the SC/ST Act arising out of the Case
Crime No.01 of 2021, pending before the Court of Special
Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh. He further submits that the
main offences under Sections 366, 376, 313, 328 of IPC
and under Section 3(i)XII of the SC/ST Act, have been
dropped and the proceedings have been quashed qua the
co-accused-Manoj Singh Bisht, therefore, there is no use
of keeping the proceedings against the applicants pending
for the reason that the applicants have only been charged
for the offences under Sections 318, 201 and 120-B IPC
and further the co-accused-Manoj Singh Bisht and
respondent No.2-Km. Sonam had got married on
01.03.2024 and the marriage is also registered in the
office of Registrar, Compulsory Registration of Marriages,
Haldwani-II, Nainital, on 12.03.2024.
6. Applicants-Prem Singh Bisht, Narendra Singh
Bisht and respondent No.2-Km. Sonam, are present
before this Court, who are duly identified by their
respective counsel. On interaction, respondent No.2
categorically stated that since she is now married with
Manoj Singh Bisht and leading a happy and peaceful
married life, and further, the matter is now amicably
settled by them and she wants to bring on peace with her
family members, therefore, she wants to end the matter
2
2025:UHC:6178
with her free will and does not want to prosecute the
applicants in the aforesaid matter any further.
7. Learned State Counsel raised a preliminary
objection to the effect that some of the offences sought to
be compounded are non-compoundable.
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
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 under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure 1973.
10. 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 compromise3
2025:UHC:6178
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.”
11. 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.
12. Accordingly, compounding application (IA/1/
2024) is allowed.
13. In view of the above, the present C482
application is allowed in terms of the compromise. The
entire proceedings of Sessions Trial No.15 of 2023 State
Vs. Narendra Singh Bisht and Another, for the offences
punishable under Sections 318, 201 and 120-B IPC,
pending before the learned Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh,
is hereby quashed. Resultantly, the Charge Sheet dated
30.07.2021 and FIR No. 01 of 2021 dated 18.01.2021
registered at P.S. Pangala, District Pithoragarh, stand
quashed qua the applicants herein.
14. Pending application(s), if any, also stands
disposed of.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
16.07.2025
PN
PREETI
Digitally signed by PREETI NEGI
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=63c75a8c4765581180a58d7478fadbe38
331bac55c78b5f9f0276c16432f6aab,
NEGI
postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=2BA53171893B3C3CB3CCCAE81F
AE064498483A83D84BDB0F9229D5BF08D959AC
, cn=PREETI NEGI
Date: 2025.07.16 16:25:42 +05’30’
4
[ad_2]
Source link