Uttarakhand High Court
7 March vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others on 17 March, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
2025:UHC:1793
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition Criminal No. 191 of 2025
17 March, 2025
Irshad and Ors
--Petitioners
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand & others
--Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Rajveer Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners
(appeared through V.C.).
Mr. B.C. Joshi, learned AGA along with Ms. Sweta Badola
Dobhal, learned Brief Holder for the State.
Mr. Ravindra Kumar, learned counsel for respondent no.3
(appeared through V.C.).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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.0205 of 2025 dated 02.03.2025, under
Sections 3/4 of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on
Marriage), Act, 2019 and Sections 115(2), 333, 351(2),
352, 64(2)(m), 77, 79 of BNS, 2023, registered with Police
Station Manglore, District Haridwar in view of the
compromise entered into between the parties.
3. Along with present criminal writ petition, a
joint compounding application signed by all the
petitioners and respondent no.3 has been filed, which is
duly supported by separate affidavits of the parties.
4. The ground for seeking compounding of
1
2025:UHC:1793
offences is that parties have reached to the terms of
compromise wherefor a settlement has also reached
between them. 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 the offences sought to be
compounded are non-compoundable.
6. Petitioner no.1 (Irshad), petitioner no.2 (Shami
@ Abdul Shami), petitioner no.3 (Parvej), petitioner no.4
(Smt. Sumani), petitioner no.5 (Junaid) and respondent
no.3 (Smt. Jareen) are present in the Court through V.C.
being duly identified by their respective counsel.
7. The Court also had an interaction with the
respondent no.3 (Smt. Jareen) the informant about the
compromise, to which, she fairly conceded that she has
no objection if compounding application is allowed.
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. Further, the Apex Court has permitted
2
2025:UHC:1793
compounding of such offences in the case of Nikhil
Merchant v. CBI and another, (2008) 9 SCC 650.
11. 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.”
12. 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.
13. Accordingly, compounding application
(IA/1/2025) is hereby allowed. The compromise arrived
at between the parties is accepted. The First Information
Report No.0205 of 2025 dated 02.03.2025, under
Sections 3/4 of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on
3
2025:UHC:1793
Marriage), Act, 2019 and Sections 115(2), 333, 351(2),
352, 64(2)(m), 77, 79 of BNS, 2023, registered with Police
Station Manglore, District Haridwar is hereby quashed.
Consequently, all the subsequent proceedings pursuant
to the impugned FIR automatically shall come to an end.
14. Present criminal writ petition, along with all
other pending applications, stands disposed of
accordingly.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
17.03.2025
AK
4
[ad_1]
Source link