Uttarakhand High Court
June vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 11 June, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
2025:UHC:4824
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 No. 1431 of 2022
11 June, 2025
Juber and Others --Applicants
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand and Another --Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Gaurav Singh, learned counsel for the applicants.
Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned A.G.A. with Ms. Sweta Badola
Dobhal, learned Brief Holder for the State of
Uttarakhand/respondent No.1.
Mr. Mohd. Safdar, learned counsel holding brief of Mr.
Sariq Khurshid, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Delay in filing the counter affidavit is
condoned. Counter affidavit filed by the State is taken on
record. Delay condonation application (IA/4/2024) made
therefor, is allowed.
3. By means of the present C482 application, the
applicants have put to challenge the Charge Sheet dated
09.04.2022, cognizance/summoning order dated
16.06.2022 and entire proceedings of Case No.300 of
2022 State Vs. Subhan @ Sonu and Others, for the
offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323,
324, 308, 506 IPC, pending before the learned First
Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar.
4. Along with the present C482 application, a
joint compounding application (IA/3/2023) is filed duly
supported by separate affidavits by applicants,
respondent No.2-complainant, respondent Nos.3 to 6-
injured.
1
2025:UHC:4824
5. In the compounding application, it has been
stated by the parties that they have settled their dispute
amicably on the intervention of some well-wishers of the
parties and the respondent No.2-complainant and
respondent Nos.3 to 6-injured do not want to pursue
with the case anymore.
6. Applicants-Juber, Imran, Wajid, Salman,
Inam, Shamsher, Shahjad Shah, Mohabbat, Vahid,
Shahzad, Farukh, Asif, Akram, Subhan Shah, are
present before this Court while respondent No.2-Adil is
present through V.C., who are duly identified by their
respective counsels. On interaction, respondent No.2
categorically stated that the matter is now amicably
settled by them with the intervention of some well-
wishers of the parties, therefore, he wants to end the
matter with his free will and without any undue pressure.
7. Learned State Counsel raised a preliminary
objection to the effect that the offences sought to be
compounded are non-compoundable.
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.
2
2025:UHC:4824
10. 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.”
11. 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.
12. Accordingly, compounding application (IA/3/
2023) is allowed.
3
2025:UHC:4824
13. In view of the above, the present C482
application is allowed in terms of the compromise. The
entire proceedings of Case No.300 of 2022 State Vs.
Subhan @ Sonu and Others, for the offences punishable
under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 308, 506 IPC,
pending before the learned First Judicial Magistrate,
Roorkee, District Haridwar, is hereby quashed subject to
payment of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) by
each of the applicants, 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 applicants in future for
venturing such a dare devil act/offence. Resultantly, the
Charge Sheet dated 09.04.2022 and FIR No.588 of 2021
dated 19.05.2021 registered with P.S. Manglaur, District
Haridwar, stand quashed qua the applicants with the
aforesaid condition.
14. Interim orders dated 08.09.2022 and
03.05.2024 stand vacated.
15. Pending application(s), if any, also stands
disposed of.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
11.06.2025
PN
PREETI
Digitally signed by PREETI NEGI
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=63c75a8c4765581180a58d7478fadbe383
31bac55c78b5f9f0276c16432f6aab,
NEGI
postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=2BA53171893B3C3CB3CCCAE81FA
E064498483A83D84BDB0F9229D5BF08D959AC,
cn=PREETI NEGI
Date: 2025.06.12 11:20:20 +05’30’
4