Uttarakhand High Court
8 June vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 18 June, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
2025:UHC:5092
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition Criminal No. 627 of 2025
18 June, 2025
Gurprem Singh And Others .........Petitioners
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand and Others .......Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Yogesh Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Mr. Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned A.G.A. along with Ms. Shweta Badola
Dobhal, learned Brief Holder for the State.
Mr. Kaushal Sah Jagati, learned counsel for respondent
no.3/complainant.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral).
The present writ petition under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India has been preferred to quash
the F.I.R. No. 251 of 2025 dated 11.06.2025 under
Sections 115(2), 118(1), 140(1), 351(2), 352 B.N.S.
registered at Police Station Kashipur, District Udham
Singh Nagar on the basis of compromise arrived at
between the parties.
2. Along with present criminal writ petition, a
joint compounding application (IA/1/2025) is filed, which
is signed and duly supported by separate affidavits by
petitioners and respondent No.3/complainant.
3. 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. It is thus, prayed that the present
first information report be quashed in terms of the
compromise arrived at between the parties.
1
2025:UHC:5092
3. The petitioner no.1-Gurprem Singh is present
in person and petitioner no. 2-Ashish Chauhan,
petitioner no.3-Amarjeet Singh & petitioner no.4-Jagpal
Singh are present through Video Conferencing, duly
identified by their counsel. Respondent no.3-Mr. Harshit
Bali is also present in the Court being duly identified by
his respective counsel. The petitioners would submit that
such an incident will not occur again in the future and
have tendered their sincere apology.
4. On interaction, respondent No.3 stated that he
has settled his dispute with petitioners amicably outside
the Court without any coercion or undue pressure,
therefore, respondent no.3 does not want to prosecute
the above case against the petitioners in view of the
amicable settlement arrived at between them. He fairly
conceded that he has no objection, if compounding
application is allowed.
5. Per contra, learned State counsel would submit
that offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 118(1),
351(2) and 352 BNS are compoundable, while, the
offence under Section 140(1) BNS is non-compoundable
offence.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners would
submit that since the parties have amicably been settled
the matter 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 facts2
2025:UHC:5092
and circumstances of each case whether to exercise or not such a power.”
7. Thus, the High Court, in exercise of its
extraordinary power can quash criminal proceedings or
FIR or complaint, and Section 320 of Cr.P.C. does not
limit or affect the powers under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
8. 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.”
9. 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.
10. Accordingly, compounding application (IA/1/
2025) is hereby allowed. The compromise arrived at
between the parties is accepted. The First Information
3
2025:UHC:5092
Report No. 251 of 2025, dated 11.06.2025 under
Sections 115(2), 118(1), 140(1), 351(2), and 352 B.N.S.S.
at Police Station Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar,
is hereby quashed. Consequently, all the subsequent
proceedings pursuant to the impugned FIR automatically
shall come to an end subject to a condition that each of
the four accused shall deposit `10,000/- totaling
`40,000/- in the account of Uttarakhand High Court
Advocates Welfare Fund, High Court Bar Association,
Nainital.
11. Accordingly, the present criminal writ petition
is allowed.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
18.06.2025
Mamta
4