Uttarakhand High Court
30 April vs State Of Uttarakhand And Ors on 30 April, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
2025:UHC:3299
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition Criminal No. 240 of 2025
30 April, 2025
Prem Singh Payal and Ors. --Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Ors. --Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Pawan Mishra, learned counsel for petitioners.
Ms. Sweta Badola Dobhal and Mr. Vipul Painuli, learned
Brief Holders for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent
Nos.1 and 2.
Mr. Ramji Shrivastava and Mr. Vishesh Shrivastava,
learned counsel for respondent No.3.
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.12 of 2022 dated 08.01.2022, under Sections
420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 504 IPC, registered with
Police Station Rajpur, District Dehradun, in view of the
compromise entered into between the parties.
3. Along with present criminal writ petition, a
joint compounding application (IA/1/2025) is filed, which
is signed and duly supported by separate affidavits by
petitioners and Smt. Mamta Rawat power of attorney
holder of respondent No.3-Saklanand Lakhera.
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.
5. Learned State Counsel raised a preliminary
objection to the effect that the offences sought to be
compounded are non-compoundable.
1
2025:UHC:3299
6. Petitioners-Prem Singh Payal, Ram Kishore
Bahuguna, Suresh Negi, Ashwani Bahuguna are present
before this Court, while respondent No.3-Saklanand
Lakhera with his power of attorney holder-Smt. Mamta
Rawat are present through V.C. Both the parties are
being duly identified by their respective counsel. On
interaction, respondent No.3 stated that he doesn’t want
to prosecute the above case against the petitioners in
view of the amicable settlement arrived between them. He
fairly conceded that he has no objection if compounding
application is allowed. He also contends that in any case
if the petitioners failed to abide by terms and conditions
of the compromise between the parties, it shall be made
open to him to make a recall application to reopen the
case against the petitioners.
7. 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.”
8. 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.
9. 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)
2
2025:UHC:3299
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.”
10. 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.
11. Accordingly, compounding application (IA/1/
2025) is hereby allowed. The compromise arrived at
between the parties is accepted. The First Information
Report No.12 of 2022 dated 08.01.2022, under Sections
420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 504 IPC, registered with
Police Station Rajpur, District Dehradun, is hereby
quashed qua the petitioners. Consequently, all the
subsequent proceedings pursuant to the impugned FIR
automatically shall come to an end qua the petitioners.
3
2025:UHC:3299
12. It is also made clear, as an abundant
precaution, by this Court that in any case, if petitioners
failed to abide by terms and conditions of the
compromise arrived at between the parties, it shall be
open to respondent No.3 to make a recall application to
reopen the case against the petitioners.
13. Accordingly, the present criminal writ petition
is allowed.
14. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
30.04.2025
PN
PREETI Digitally signed by PREETI NEGI
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=63c75a8c4765581180a58d7478fadbe38331bac55c78b5f9f0276c16432f6aab,
postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
NEGI
serialNumber=2BA53171893B3C3CB3CCCAE81FAE064498483A83D84BDB0F9229D5B
F08D959AC, cn=PREETI NEGI
Date: 2025.05.01 14:56:20 +05’30’
4
[ad_1]
Source link