[ad_1]
Uttarakhand High Court
9 July vs State Of Uttarakhand And Ors on 9 July, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
2025:UHC:5894
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition Criminal No. 1431 of 2024
09 July, 2025
Babar and Ors. --Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Ors. --Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Ankur Sharma, learned counsel for petitioners.
Mr. Bhaskar Chandra Joshi, learned A.G.A. for the State
of Uttarakhand/respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Mr. Vaibhav Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for
respondent Nos.3 and 4.
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.0268 of 2024 dated 23.08.2024, for the
offences punishable under Sections 109(1), 115(2),
191(2), 351(3), 352 and 74 of BNS 2023, registered with
Police Station Vikas Nagar, District Dehradun, in view of
the compromise entered into between the parties.
3. Along with present criminal writ petition, a
joint compounding application (IA/1/2024) is filed and
signed duly supported by separate affidavits by
petitioners, respondent Nos.3 and 4.
4. 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:5894
5. Petitioners-Babar, Mohd. Kaif, Hairan,
respondent no.3-Napeesha (informant) and respondent
No.4-Afjal (injured) are present before this Court being
duly identified by their respective counsel. On
interaction, respondent Nos.3 and 4 stated that they are
relatives and do not want to prosecute the above case
against the petitioners in view of the amicable settlement
arrived between them. They fairly conceded that they
have no objection if compounding application is allowed.
6. Learned State Counsel raised a preliminary
objection to the effect that the offences sought to be
compounded are non-compoundable. He submits that
after investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted
against the petitioner No.3-Hairan on 24.03.2025,
pursuant to the aforesaid FIR.
7. 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 FIR
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.
8. 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 Court
can quash a criminal proceeding in exercise of its power2
2025:UHC:5894
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.”
9. 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’.
10. 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 compromise,
there would remain a remote or bleak possibility of
3
2025:UHC:5894
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/1/2024) is hereby allowed. The compromise arrived
at between the parties is accepted. The First Information
Report No.0268 of 2024 dated 23.08.2024, for the
offences punishable under Sections 109(1), 115(2),
191(2), 351(3), 352 and 74 of BNS 2023, registered with
Police Station Vikas Nagar, District Dehradun, is hereby
quashed qua the petitioners, subject to payment of
Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) by each of the
petitioner, in the Uttarakhand High Court Bar Association
Advocates’ Welfare Fund, simply for the reason of wasting
public time of investigating agency and to act as deterrent
against the petitioners in future for venturing such a dare
devil act/offence. Consequently, all the subsequent
proceedings pursuant to the impugned FIR automatically
shall come to an end qua the petitioners with the
aforesaid condition.
12. The present criminal writ petition stands
allowed accordingly.
13. Pending application(s), if any, also stands
disposed of.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
09.07.2025
PN
PREETI Digitally signed by PREETI NEGI
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF
UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=63c75a8c4765581180a58d7478fadbe38331bac55c78b5f9f02
NEGI
76c16432f6aab, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=2BA53171893B3C3CB3CCCAE81FAE064498483A83D84
BDB0F9229D5BF08D959AC, cn=PREETI NEGI
Date: 2025.07.09 16:00:19 +05’30’
4
[ad_2]
Source link