Uttarakhand High Court
8 July vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others on 18 July, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
2025:UHC:6266
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition Criminal No. 676 of 2025
18 July, 2025
Ejaj Ahmad & another
--Petitioners
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand & others
--Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Mani Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned AGA along with Ms. Sweta Badola
Dobhal, learned Brief Holder for the State.
Mr. Manoj Bhatt, learned counsel for respondent no.3.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
By means of the present writ petition,
petitioners have put to challenge the F.I.R. No.285 of
2025 dated 19.06.2025, under Section 109 of B.N.S.
2023 registered at Police Station Rudrapur, District
Udham Singh Nagar on the basis of compromise
entered into between the parties.
2. Along with present criminal writ petition, a
joint compounding application has also been filed by
the parties, which is duly supported by separate
affidavits of the parties.
3. Petitioner no.1 (Ejaj Ahmad), petitioner no.2
(Rizwan Ahmad @ Rizvi) and respondent
no.3/informant (Mohd. Imranare present before this
1
2025:UHC:6266
Court, duly identified by their respective counsel.
4. In the compounding application, it has been
stated by the parties that they have reached to terms of
compromise wherefor a settlement has also been
arrived at between them. It is thus, prayed that the
present first information report be quashed in terms of
the compromise arrived at between them.
5. Learned State Counsel raised a preliminary
objection to the effect that the offence sought to be
compounded is non-compoundable. He further objected
to the compounding application on the ground that the
offence sought to be compounded are very heinous like
109 of B.N.S. Act i.e. attempt to murder.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied
upon a judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the case of Jaiveer Malik & Another Vs. The State
of Delhi passed in Criminal Appeal Nos.864-866 of
2024, wherein, the proceedings arising out of F.I.R.
No.223 of 2016 were set aside, which too were
registered under Section 307 of IPC, taking recourse of
Yogendra Yadav case as noted below.
7. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Yogendra Yadav and Others Vs. State of
Jharkhand and Another reported in (2014) 9 SCC
653, in Para 4 it has been observed as under:-
“4. Now, the question before this Court is whether this
Court can compound the offences under Sections 326
and 307 of the IPC which are non-compoundable.
Needless to say that offences which are non-
compoundable cannot be compounded by the court.
Courts draw the power of compounding offences from
Section 320 of the Code. The said provision has to be
strictly followed (Gian Singh v. State of Punjab) (2012)
10 SCC 303. However, in a given case, the High Court2
2025:UHC:6266
can quash a criminal proceeding in exercise of its power
under Section 482 of the Code having regard to the fact
that the parties have amicably settled their disputes
and the victim has no objection, even though the
offences are non-compoundable. In which cases the
High Court can exercise its discretion to quash the
proceedings will depend on facts and circumstances of
each case. Offences which involve moral turpitude,
grave offences like rape, murder etc. cannot be effaced
by quashing the proceedings because that will have
harmful effect on the society. Such offences cannot be
said to be restricted to two individuals or two groups. If
such offences are quashed, it may send wrong signal to
the society. However, when the High Court is convinced
that the offences are entirely personal in nature and,
therefore, do not affect public peace or tranquility and
where it feels that quashing of such proceedings on
account of compromise would bring about peace and
would secure ends of justice, it should not hesitate to
quash them. In such cases, the prosecution becomes a
lame prosecution. Pursuing such a lame prosecution
would be waste of time and energy. That will also
unsettle the compromise and obstruct restoration of
peace.”
8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court is of the view
that ‘if Court is convinced that the offences are entirely
personal in nature and, therefore, do not affect public
peace or tranquility and where it feels that quashing of
such proceedings on account of compromise would
bring about peace and would secure ends of justice, it
should not hesitate to quash them. In such cases, the
prosecution becomes a lame prosecution. Pursuing
such a lame prosecution would be waste of time and
energy. That will also unsettle the compromise and
obstruct restoration of peace’
9. Having considered the submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties and the principle
enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case
of Yogendra Yadav (Supra), which is reiterated in
Jaiveer Malik (Supra), this Court is of the opinion
that since the parties have reached to the terms of the
3
2025:UHC:6266
compromise, 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.
10. Accordingly, Compounding Application (IA
No.1 of 2025) is hereby allowed. The compromise
arrived at between the parties is accepted. F.I.R.
No.285 of 2025 dated 19.06.2025, under Section 109 of
B.N.S. 2023 registered at Police Station Rudrapur,
District Udham Singh Nagar, is hereby quashed, qua,
the petitioners, subject to the condition that both the
petitioners shall deposit Rs.15,000/- before the
Uttarakhand High Court Bar Association Advocates’
Welfare Fund within fifteen days from today for the
reason that the parties have wasted the valuable public
time of the investigating agency and further to act as a
deterrent against the petitioners so that they would not
indulge in such criminal activities in future.
Consequently, all the subsequent proceedings
pursuant to the impugned F.I.R. qua the petitioners
automatically shall come to an end
11. Present criminal writ petition stands allowed
accordingly.
12. Pending application, if any, stands disposed
of accordingly.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
18.07.2025
AK
4